The Lost World of Genesis One (18 page)

PREVIOUS CHAPTERS HAVE MADE passing reference on a number
of occasions to other theories concerning Genesis 1. In this chapter each one will be briefly evaluated to identify the points of
comparison with the theory proposed here.

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONISM (YEC)

The YEC position believes that the days in Genesis 1 are consecutive twenty-four-hour days during which the entire material
cosmos was brought into existence. Proponents of this view therefore believe that everything must be recent (the origins of the universe, the earth and humankind). Some variation exists as to
whether the cosmic origins go back 10,000-20,000 years as some
would allow, or only go back about 6,000 years from the present
(as promoted at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky).
The challenge they face is to account for all of the evidences of
great age of the earth and of the universe. They do this by offering alternative theories allegedly based on science. For example,
they typically account for the visibility of the stars by suggesting that light was created in transit. Most propose that the geological
strata were laid down by the flood, and some contend that continental drift has all taken place since the flood. They commonly
use the idea that God created with the appearance of age to account for some of what is observed.

Though each of their proposals could be discussed individually,' it is more important here to address the foundation of the
approach. I would contend that this view goes too far in its understanding of what we need to do to defend the biblical text. It goes
too far in its belief that the Bible must be read scientifically, and it
goes too far in its attempts to provide an adequate alternative science. It uses a particular interpretation of the biblical text to provide the basis for scientific proposals about rock strata, an expanding universe and so forth. The YEC position begins with the
assumption that Genesis 1 is an account of material origins and
that to "create" something means to give it material shape. It would
never occur to them that there are other alternatives and that in
making this assumption they are departing from a face-value reading of the biblical text. In fact they pride themselves on reading the
text literally and flash this as a badge of honor as they critique
other views. Reading the text scientifically imposes modern thinking on an ancient text, an anachronism that by its very nature cannot possibly represent the ideas of the inspired human author.

I would contend that while their reading of the word "day"
(vom) as a twenty-four-hour day is accurate, they have been too
narrow in their reading of words such as "create" (bara) and
"made" It is not that they have considered the merits of a
nonmaterial understanding of these words and rejected it. They
are not even aware that this is a possibility and have therefore never
considered it. In the functional view that has been presented in
this book, the text can be taken at face value without necessitating
all of the scientific gymnastics of YEC. Their scientific scenarios have proven extremely difficult for most scientifically trained people to accept. When the latter find YEC science untenable, they
have too often concluded that the Bible must be rejected.

OLD EARTH CREATIONISM (OEC)

One of the more prominent voices supporting the OEC position
is found in the writings of Hugh Ross and his associates (Reasons
to Believe). Ross believes that the Bible is not characterized by the
limited scientific knowledge of its time and place.2 So, for example, he suggests that in Genesis 1:3-5 the presence of light is evident through the "dense shroud of interplanetary dust and debris"
that prevents the heavenly bodies from being seen. He sees day
two as the beginning of the water cycle and "the formation of the
troposphere, the atmospheric layer just above the ocean where
clouds form and humidity resides, as distinct from the stratosphere, mesosphere, and ionosphere lying above." He looks to tectonics and volcanism to explain day three.3 Ross believes, along
with many others, that the old age of the earth and the universe
can be easily accommodated to Genesis 1 once we realize that the
days can represent long eras.4

One may not be inclined to dispute the science that underlies
this approach, and Ross's desire to validate the text of Genesis, as in
the YEC camp, is commendable. The question is, Is that what the
author of Genesis is trying to say? We might be able to make the
claim that there is some sort of compatibility between the scientific
sequence and the textual sequence, but that is not proof that the
text should be interpreted in scientific ways with advanced scientific content (latent in the text). One could do the same thing with
Babylonian or Egyptian creation accounts. It is proof of our ingenuity rather than evidence of some ingrained underlying science.

If those from this camp were to consider the merits of the functional view proposed in this book, they would not have to give up all the scientific correlations proposed, but such an approach
would no longer be of interest or carry any urgency, necessity or
significance. They would only have to admit that the text makes
no such claims and requires no such validation. Taking the text
seriously is not expressed by correlating it with modern science; it
is expressed by understanding it in its ancient context. If the text
is interested in functional origins, it need not be evaluated against
material claims and material knowledge. Its validation would
come in answer to the question, Is this really how God set up the
world to run, and is he the one who set it up? This stands in stark
contrast to the validation that asks, Is this a scientifically accurate
account of how the material universe came into being?

FRAMEWORK HYPOTHESIS

The framework hypothesis represents a literary/theological approach to Genesis 1. On the literary side it recognizes that the
account of the seven days is highly structured, with the first three
days defining realms of habitation and the second set of three filling these realms with inhabitants. Parallels exist between days
one and four, days two and five, and days three and six. From this
literary structuring conclusions are drawn about the account.

We may simply conclude from this high level of patterning that the order of events and even lengths of time are
not part of the author's focus.... In this understanding,
the six workdays are a literary device to display the creation week as a careful and artful effort.5

Discussion then typically follows that draws out the theologically significant points of the passage on which all agree:
God as Creator of all, the sovereignty of God, the power of the
spoken word, the "goodness" of creation, the image of God in
people and the significance of sabbath.b

The question to be posed to this group is whether they have
gone far enough with the text. Is there more to it than theological
affirmations expressed in a literary way? While no objection can
be raised against the literary structure and no disagreement with
the theological points, one has to ask whether Israelites thought of
this text in only literary/theological terms. This view risks reductionism and oversimplification, and should be only a last resort.

For those who have in the past adopted the framework hypothesis, the theory proposed in this book does not require them to
discard that interpretation, but only to accept the functional perspective alongside it. This does not require replacement, but
would add value.

OTHER THEORIES

Throughout much of the twentieth century, a popular view was
known as the "gap theory" or the "ruin-reconstruction" theory,
promoted in the Scofield Reference Bible. It suggested that Genesis 1:1 recounted a prior creation ruled by an unfallen Satan. It
had the advantage that it allowed for the universe and earth to be
old, but the days of Genesis to be recent. Anything that did not fit
into a recent earth (e.g., geological strata, dinosaurs) could just be
shoved back into the first creation. In this view, at Satan's fall that
first creation was destroyed-this is the gap between Genesis 1:1
and Genesis 1:2. The second verse was translated, "The earth became formless and void." Response to this theory demonstrated
that the Hebrew text could not be read in that way and the theory
has been gradually fading from the scene.

Others have suggested that the accounts in Genesis 1:1-2:3
and Genesis 2:4-25 are separated by many millions of years. In
this view the old earth can be supported along with the mass appearance of hominid species in the first account. The second account is then associated with something like the Neolithic revolu tion in relatively recent times and associated with the granting of
the image of God on two individuals that leads to Homo sapiens.7
The problems with this position are largely theological. Were the
previous hominid species in the image of God? Were they subject
to death? How do they relate to the Fall? Are they biologically
mixed into the current human race? These are questions that need
to be answered by those promoting this position.

In conclusion it should be reemphasized that all of these positions have in common that they are struggling to reconcile the scientific findings about the material cosmos with the biblical record
without compromising either. They all assume that the biblical account needs to be treated as an account of material origins, and
therefore that the "different" scientific account of material origins
poses a threat to the credibility of the biblical account that has to be
resolved. This book has proposed, instead, that Genesis 1 was never
intended to offer an account of material origins and that the original author and audience did not view it that way. In fact, the material cosmos was of little significance to them when it came to questions of origins. In this view, science cannot offer an unbiblical view
of material origins, because there is no biblical view of material origins aside from the very general idea that whatever happened,
whenever it happened, and however it happened, God did it.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1984.

Carlson, Richard. Science and Christianity: Four Views. Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Moreland, J. P., and John Mark Reynolds, eds. Three Views on
Creation and Evolution. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Ratsch, Del. The Battle ofBeginnings. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996.