The 6 Days of Creation in Genesis (original) (raw)
Related papers
Do The Six Days of Creation Have To Be Understood Literally
In this paper I examine the claim that the days of creation in Gen 1.1-2.3 must necessarily be understood as a calendar sequence of seven solar days. Pipa (2005) sets out five exegetical and theological arguments to substantiate this position. I examine each argument in turn and demonstrate that it does not hold. I also present evidence from ANE literature that ancient peoples understood that daylight was not dependent on the sun, but instead the sun was a mere marker of the day. This means that what the ancients believed a day to be was quite different to what we understand today. I also show that the seven-day format is a known literary device in ANE literature for expressing completion/perfection. In the end I come to the same conclusion as Augustine that regarding the days of creation as literal solar days is theologically absurd and ridiculous in practice.
Since the Beginning: Interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 through the Ages
Few passages in the Hebrew Bible have been subject to more scrutiny than Genesis 1 and 2. In this volume, a diverse international team of experts guides readers through interpretations of the Genesis creation stories throughout history, inviting readers to consider perspectives from the earliest times to the present. Written with the capabilities and needs of students in mind, this book offers an accurate description of how Genesis 1 and 2 have been read through the centuries and explains each interpretive approach in its own terms. Each chapter includes sidebars and suggestions for further reading. Since the Beginning is well suited for courses on the Old Testament, Genesis and creation, the history of interpretation, and science and religion. It will also appeal to teachers, pastors, and others following the creation debates and discussions. http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/since-the-beginning/376810
A Defense of Literal Days in the Creation Week
In this article I argue that the days of the creation week were intended to be normal days of 24 hours. In support of this view, I set forth five reasons for taking the days in Genesis 1:1–2:3 as literal days. In addition, I respond to four arguments against the traditional understanding of the creation days.
Genesis 1 and the Subject of Time: Why Perception of Literary Structure and Balance Matters
2015
Many scholars have accepted a linear view of literary structure and balance in the text of Genesis 1 that may be incomplete and unbalanced. This paper exists to challenge the accepted view and offer a circular structure as a more informed perspective. Structure and balance matters for two reasons: As the text of Genesis 1 unfolds, the literary structure follows the seven visible colors of the rainbow. The words, "Let there be light" quite literally introduce the reader to every color in the visible spectrum. Secondly, a timekeeping methodology is woven into the literary structure that moves the reader from the beginning of time Genesis 1 to the Sabbath Day garden in Genesis 3. The methodology is dependent on the seven visible colors of the rainbow. The subjects of light and time are integral to understanding the purpose for this text. If we accept a literary view that does not permit both light and time to emerge, then we will remain blind to the deeper spiritual teachings of Genesis 1. Put simply, the account of Creation is quite sophisticated below the surface!
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 2016
In the March 1991 edition of this journal, I published an article titled "Genesis on the Origin of the Human Race." In that piece, I took the position that Genesis sees humans as essentially religious beings, a nd I went on to argue that this means that the origin of the human race is identical with the origin of religious consciousness in creatures. I still think that is correct. However, in that same article, I also took the position that the Adam of Genesis 2 was the fi rst religious being on Earth, and was therefore the fi rst human and the ancestor of all other humans. In short, I was still under the Augustinian spell of seeing Genesis 2 as a second creation story, contrary to an important rabbinical tradition I have discovered since then. The following article presents the reasons why I am now forced to rescind my earlier position. In what follows, I will show why the Hebrew text does not present Adam and Eve as either the fi rst humans or the ancestors of all humans, and that the New Testament actually denies both those claims. Neither can I any longer agree with Augustine's view that Genesis presents Adam and Eve as created sinless so that their fall from grace is the origin of sin in the world. That runs counter to a longstanding rabbinical tradition as well as to the Eastern Orthodox Christian understanding. It is owing to Augustine's great infl uence, I believe, that we tend to read such claims into Genesis, and are blinded to some crucial parts of the New Testament that could correct them. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith Article Reading Genesis between Genesis and the results of contemporary science. 2 I must say, however, that if these clergy and scholars have good reasons for thinking there is no such confl ict, they have done an extremely poor job of communicating those reasons to the lay members of their churches. The average lay worshipper knows only that whenever naturalists can get a voice in the popular media, they proclaim that science has disproven what Genesis teaches and so conclude that the scriptures teach falsehood. Since the average layperson is utterly unprepared to meet this challenge, I hope to show here how that can be remedied. One fi nal word before launching my canoe into this (un)Pacifi c Ocean: Augustine prefaced his commentary on early Genesis with the remark that the only interpretations he was sure were wrong, were ones that said "only my view can be right." I second that sentiment. What follows is but one Christian's take on the subject, offered in the hope that it may help others who are struggling with the same issues. Therefore, what is most important is not whether my readers fi nd every interpretation I propose to be correct in every detail. Rather, it is whether exposing the false assumptions behind the fundamentalist agenda can help clear the way for understanding Genesis on its own terms and with respect to its own purposes.
True Biblical Six-Day Creationism
The proponents of Young-Earth Creationism and the modern adherents of the Traditional Six-Day Creationism have failed to recognize that God’s physical works of the six days are actually as described in Genesis 1:3-31. They will not be able to recognize this truth as long as they are unwilling to acknowledge the biblical truth of an instant perfect creation briefly described in Genesis 1:1; and, next admit the fact that the chaos mentioned in Genesis 1:2 is not a work of direct creation but of judgment. Again, they will not accept the fact that God actually next worked for six days so as to restore life conditions and create man after His own image and rest on the seventh day. Moreover, in the light of Biblical Truth ‘here a little and there a little’ the evangelical truths that are hidden in the very first chapter of Genesis clearly stand out and cannot be simply ignored.
Interpreting Genesis: A Defense of the Young Earth View
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2019
Various evidences from astronomy, biology, and geology have given the scientific community confidence to declare that the world is billions of years old. The Christian community must decide how to respond to this assertion. The Hebrew word יום is translated into English as “day” in Genesis 1. For those who believe that this word is meant to be interpreted figuratively as an “age,” they see no contradiction between the assertion of the scientific community and the testimony of Scripture about the age of the earth. The traditional interpretation of יום understands the word to refer to a literal twenty-four-hour day. Therefore, the creation week consisted of six literal twenty-four-hour days. If the universe and humanity were formed during the same week, then the age of the earth could not be said to be more than a couple of hundred thousand years. Those holding this view have concluded that the majority of the scientific community is mistaken about the age of the earth. This writer recognizes that this is a difficult position to take and that this position requires biblical and theological warrant.