People get so many different things out of Genesis 1. The following represents my perspective on how to make sense of it.
Although I point out areas of disagreement, it is not intended to be argumentative. Rather, I seek to explore various ideas, their logic, and implications.
1. On Reading Genesis, Generally
The creation account of Genesis 1 is, in my opinion, the greatest poem ever written. I think it should be aloud to really sink into the language and power of the text. For instance: "Let there be light [pause] and there was [1/2 pause] light".
But if it is poem, how literal should we take it? Does it reflect an historical record or a metaphor, describe events on a spiritual level, or was intended to contrast the Enuma Elish and show God's might over the Sumerian gods? I must admit that I just don't know. If anything, I'm leaning towards - Yes! - all of the above.
I'm actually confounded by the mystery of the questions raised by the answers. Particularly, why is light created on day 1, yet the sources of light and the sources for measuring the intervals of time are created later.
As I was beating my brain for an answer to these paradoxes, I was reminded of the beauty, harmony, and rhythm of the language of Genesis 1 itself. It feels like a soft and gentle breeze.
If we let Genesis speak to us, we can find a mystery, wonder, and awe.
We could also interject that some events could represent spiritual level events and not necessarily on the physical. For instance, the separation of the "light" and "water" describe events that happened on a spiritual level, interwoven with the description of the natural world, with "water" being symbolic of evil. Thus it describes a spiritual war in the heavens which God has already won. The vanquished were sent from Heaven down to earth, for humans to "subdue". In Genesis 3, we find that the man failed at that objective.
2. Quandary - Aquatic plants
Interestingly, aquatic plants are not given the same details as terrestrial plants or aquatic animals. In fact, it is somewhat unclear which day they were created on. Day Three covers terrestrial plants (v. 11-13) and Day Four covers sea life, but the emphasis is on moving creatures (v. 20-21). Verse 21 does state that God created every "living and moving thing" in the waters.
We could also assume that the terrestrial plants were created three days before terrestrial animals so that the animals would have food when they arrived. If we take this analogy, then aquatic plants would have to be created on Day Three.
I say this as sort of a joke. But it does highlight the perspective and biases of people reading this and the targeted audience of Genesis 1. Genesis 1 does not provide a comprehensive and clear answer of things.
3. The epoch and eon theory
One theory I have heard to try to harmonize this text with science is that these creation days generally represent epochs and eons from the Big Bang.
This has some logic to it, but also some difficulties, depending on how literal we want to be.
A. The Big Bang
Generally, the Big Bang model goes as follows:
- 15 billion years ago
All mass of the universe exploded from a central point. The universe has been expanding ever since.
- 15-5 billion years ago
Various stars are born and die.
Note, life as we know it requires heavy metals, for instance iron. In a naturalistic model, these are only created in stars through nuclear fusion. The protons of hydrogen atoms fuse and become helium. This fuses with another hydrogen atom, which becomes lithium, and so forth. That is how we have all chemicals other than hydrogen. Consider these as elemental seeds of the earth we know today.
- 5 billion years ago
Our own solar system is born.
The earth is a gaseous ball. The solar winds burn off the gases and consolidate the mass of the earth until it is a molten rock.
- 5-3 billion years ago
The earth cools. Life begins.
- 3 billion years ago- present
Multicellular plants emerge in the oceans. The release oxygen as a waste product which transforms the atmosphere. Moving sea creatures form and plant life colonies land. Sea creatures move from the ocean to land.
Land creatures give rise to birds and eventually humans.
B. How does this compare with Genesis 1?
Pre-day one: God created the heavens and the earth. If we want to add a "then" to make it a "heavens and 'then' the earth", that roughly equals what scientists say about the first 10-15 billion years.
Day one: a formless earth, separation of lights. This somewhat matches, especially if we consider the solar winds blowing against the gaseous ball of the earth. But we can also use this to interpret the prior verse to read:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the 'formless' earth."
Thus, the events of Day One and Two give it form. These are the separation of lights and the separation of water from land.Day Three is the formation of the rise of terrestrial plants.
Up to now, this generally follows the order events in the Big Bang model, if we allow that "days" are actually eons of time, representing billions of years.
Day Four presents a big problem. Here, we have the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. In the Big Bang model, it is the sun and stars that enable the development of the earth. Here, it is reversed.
Day Five potentially presents another problem - the rise of sea life. Particularly, if we assume that this includes aquatic plants, since they would need to rise before terrestrial plants. However, if we read into Day Four that aquatic plants also rose with the terrestrial plants, this problem goes away.
Day Five presents another problem - the birds before terrestrial animals. The scientific model has dinosaurs rising before birds.
Day Six - the rise of terrestrial animals and finally, man. That generally follows the scientific model.
4. The "Gap Theory"
One attempt to get around this problem is that verse 1 covers 15 billion years, up to roughly about 6,000 years ago. Verse 2 picks up there, thus making a huge gap of time. In the interim, we had the dinosaurs, etc...and eventually a massive spiritual war that left the earth a formless mess, requiring a re-creation. This re-creation is the focus of what we know as Creation Week.
I am generally comfortable with this idea, but one problem with this theory is that the sun, moon, and stars are created after the earth has form. One way of getting around that is to assume that the sun, moon, and stars were already there, but unseen due to something like a "cosmic smog". On Day Four, God is clearing out this smog. The text does not explicitly say that the sun, moon, and stars come into existence on Day Four, they just need to "be" - "let there be lights in the expanse of the sky."
5. The “appearance” of an older earth
Another theory I have heard is that the entire universe was created in Creation Week but has the appearance of a much older universe. It uses an analogy that Adam and Eve were created in the adult form. They appeared to be twenty-five - or however old you imagine them - but actually are only minutes, hours, and days old as the story unfolds.
Several problems with this model:
(1) The text explicitly states that Adam and Eve had the appearance of being much older than they are. They obviously were not created as infants because they carry on conversations. The text does not state this about the earth, sun, moon, and stars.
(2) It actually gives deference and acceptance of the scientific principles underlying the rationale for an old earth. In essence, this model says "yes, the scientist measurements are absolutely right".
(3). What about fossils? The model would be a lot easier to accept if we were only talking about the abstract expanding universe. But we have fossils, not just of dinosaurs, but of plants that show continuous plant growth cycles that go back 10,000s of years.
If God made the appearance of an older earth, then God made the fossils to give the appearance of an older earth. Why would God do this? This idea walks a fine line of making God to out like a liar.
To harmonize this, some go as far as to say that devil put fossils here to confuse scientists. This saves God's reputation for honesty, but lacks intellectual satisfaction. It also comes across paranoia, as if a person's faith hinges on whether or not God made the earth 6,000 years ago. If a person accuses the devil of making fossils, then the person's faith is threatened by the existence of fossils.
Another problem with this is that it gives an attribute of God to the devil. This is the creative power of God. One of the things that makes God distinct and Holy is that God can create. God created the world and the universe and this makes God amazing. God is distinct in this ability to create the world. In the Bible, only God is given credit for the creation of the world or any part in it. That said, mankind is made in the image of God and given the ability to create things.
If we believe the devil created fossils or the appearance of past life, then we are giving an attribute to the devil something that prior to that was a distinctive characteristic of God.
6. Does the Bible even say that the earth is 6,000 years old?
Despite the quandaries and lack of information, I actually do not have much problem with a literal six day Creation Week. I do have a problem with the extrapolation from this that the earth is 6,000 years old.
I have done a quick survey of the logic of this and it seems to be as follows:
- God created the earth in six literal days and rested on the Seventh.
- God likes the number "Seven".
- Humanity with rest with the Millennium (Rev. 20). Essentially, it will be like a Sabbath for Humanity since Satan will be bound.
- The Millennium has not happened yet.
- A day is "like a thousand years to God" (2 Peter 3:8). The rest of the verse is usually omitted, that the "a thousand years is like a day". The following verses emphasize the patience of God.
- Combining these principles, then if Humanity will experience a Thousand Year Sabbath, and a day is a thousand years to God, then on creation week, God created six thousand years for age of humanity, pre-Millennium.
- Therefore, the earth and humanity is less than six thousand years old.
Nowhere in the Bible does it actually state that the earth or humanity is less than six thousand years old. This is something people put together based on combining verses from three different areas of the Bible devoid of the context that the verses appear.
The worst part of the logic is the application of the day is a thousand years. In context, it emphasizes the patience of God. Likewise, the rest of the verse that a thousand years is like a day shows the interchangeability of time for God, rather than providing a road map to conclude about the age of the earth or humanity.
Likewise, there is is no reason to expect that the number "Seven" is more important than other numbers that God uses elsewhere in the Bible. For instance, "Three" marks the Trinity, "Twelve" is the number of Tribes of Israel and the number of Apostles, and "Fifty" sets the years of Jubilee and the date of Pentecost. Why use "Seven" as a special number for use in a way the Bible does not instruct - multiplied by a 1,000 to set the age of the earth or humanity?
Rather, in context, the number Seven is used to set a date of rest. This is what we do - every seven days - rest. Culturally, we observe rest every seven days. In fact, it lasts for two days. We call them weekends.
7. A metaphorical approach
This is my personal favorite. If you consider the ancient near east creation myths, particularly the Enuma Elish, then the symbolism falls into place.
People in the ancient near east worshipped stars, God created them on Day 4, almost like an after thought. It is literally like this: "He also made the stars". (v. 16).
The people feared the deep waters, symbolic of evil. Here, God shows dominance and power over it. In fact, God's spirit hovered over it. (v. 2).
They also feared chaos. Here, God reaches into the chaotic universe simply by speaking. Through speaking alone, God draws out light, land, life, and eventually humans.
No comments:
Post a Comment