Is it possible for an infinite God to create everything that exists within the space of a week? Is the creation account literal history, allegory, a polemic, mythical history, majestic prose or something else?
In the Beginning
Who made everything that is in the material universe?
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1 CEV, CJB, ESV, HCSB, LSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, WEB).
The KJV makes the word heaven singular and some add a comma after the word beginning, but essentially most translations are the same.
Some scholars believe that “In the beginning” should be better translated as “in a beginning”. The traditional translation has been followed by most scholars. (Kass, Leon R. The Beginning of Wisdom, University Of Chicago Press. 2006. 27.)
The first word in Hebrew is “be-ra-SHEET”. It is the Hebrew title of Genesis, meaning basically “in (the) beginning.” With God, there is no beginning, but with the material universe there was. Even the science of atheists agrees that the material universe had a beginning.
The second word in the Hebrew sentence is “ba-RA” and is usually translated as created. It is a word exclusively used to describe something new that only God can create.
“El-o-HEEM” is the third word in the Hebrew sentence, usually translated as God. It is a unique word in that the ending “im” is Hebrew plural, yet it is used with a singular verb, known as a plural intensive. It can indicate plurality or greatness. It occurs 32 times in Genesis 1, making God a major theme of the chapter. Is this the mystery of God being one but plural, the first hint of the important Christian doctrine of the Trinity in scripture?
The next words in the Hebrew sentence are “et ha sha-MAH-yeem va et ha AH-rets”, usually translated as “the heavens and the earth.” This is the Hebrew equivalent of the universe. Was the Holy Spirit involved?
The earth was unformed and void, darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. (Genesis 1:2 CJB)
Creation Theories
Is Genesis literal history, allegory, or majestic prose? What are some forgotten purposes of the creation accounts? Let’s look at a few pros and cons of various creation theories and some spiritual purposes of this narrative.
Let’s now examine a few of the many, many creation theories and some of their strengths and weaknesses:
1. Godless Evolution: A popular theory today is evolution without God. A strength is that it gives the appearance of an attempt to be honest with the geological record and biological diversity. Its greatest weaknesses must include often ignoring even the possibility of divinity, the origins of irreducible complexity in design without a designer, treating fictitious theories as fact even though they are completely unable to be reproduced in a lab, and denial of ubiquitous forensic evidence of God’s existence.
2. Theistic Evolution: A popular theory is God-directed evolution. A strength of this theory is that it also tries to be honest with modern scientific theories. A weakness is that it puts too much trust in potentially dishonest and fallible human testimony which is constantly changing, and demotes those parts of the Bible which don’t fit the evolutionary paradigm to the realm of fictitious myth.
Another weakness is that microevolution within a kind or family of species is observable, as dog breeding shows, but proof of macroevolution, from one family into another family entirely, has never been observed and remains elusive.
3. The Day-Age Theory: The day-age theory speculates that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal days but ages, possibly millions of years. A strength of this theory is that it acknowledges popular interpretation of the geological record. Weaknesses include an ignorance of scientific evidence that supports a young earth, and the internal literary definition of the days in question being morning and evening.
The word day has various meanings usually defined by the context. Sometimes day refers to the light portion of a 24 hour period, as in “God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night.” Sometimes the word day refers to a period of time, such as “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens” which is similar to how we speak of things back in grandpa’s day, meaning when he was young. A weakness of the day-age theory is that in context, the word day is clearly defined as “the evening and the morning.”
4. The Literal 6 Day Theory: This is the most literal interpretation. Some strengths are that Hebrew scholars say that this is a literal narrative in the original language, not metaphor or poetry. Though there are at least three meanings of the word “day” in Genesis 1-2, each creation “day” is clearly defined as morning and evening. Some scientists claim that dating methods are grossly distorted and that the geological record can be interpreted in a manner consistent with a young earth.
A major scientific weakness of a literal 6 day creation is explaining the existence of light coming from stars that are millions of light years away. There are some reasonable explanations of God making the universe visible so that we could see it, but they too are in the realm of speculation with little current physical proof.
5. The Gap Theory: According to this theory, the devil ruined things after Genesis 1:1 and this ruin-restoration or restoration theory postulates a gap of perhaps millions of years followed by a re-creation in verse 2.
A strength is attempting to harmonize the geological record with the Bible, with some limited scriptural backing: the Holy Spirit “renewed” the face of the waters (Psalms 104:30) and angels were a previous creation (Job 38:4-7). Because geologists are stuck in a paradigm that denies a young earth, this fits their worldview.
A weakness is that Romans 5:14 says that death reigned from Adam to Moses not before Adam, at least over humanity. The gap is pure speculation without sufficient evidence.
6. A Polemic Theory: A polemic is a hostile attack. Was Genesis 1 an attack upon nature worship showing that God created what people worshiped as gods? A strength of this theory is that ancients did worship nature as many gods. A weakness of this theory is that if this is meant to be a polemic, that purpose is somewhat disguised.
7. Augustine’s Allegory Theory: Augustine and others taught that Genesis was a creation allegory. A strength of that idea is that it could explain some of the internal puzzles. A weakness is that Jesus acknowledged a young earth perspective (Mark 10:6, Mark 13:19-20, Luke 11:50-51), and treated the Hebrew Scriptures as if they were history not myth (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:3-9; Luke 11:50-51; Matthew 24:38-39; John 3:14; John 6:32-33, 49; Luke 17:28-32; Matthew 10:15; Luke 4:25-27; Matthew 12:40-41). Another weakness is that for most of the past 2,000 years the church has treated Genesis as history not myth.
8. Majestic Prose: Another theory is that Genesis is stylized history (the original meaning of the word myth), majestic prose, elevated prose, or a festive overture. Some strengths of this view are the poetic parts of the story, such as days 1, 2, 3 being parallel to days 4, 5, 6 though it is mostly prose, with the stylistic use of the number 7. A weakness is if it was merely stylized prose, then those who know Hebrew best and many people throughout history have completely missed that point.
9. Intelligent Design (The Teleological Argument): Intelligent design challenges one of science’s greatest weaknesses: deliberately ignoring God. Far too many scientists ignore their own forensic, evidence-based methods when it comes to the existence of God. One strength of this teleological argument (evidence of design in nature) is that it is older than Socrates, who coined the Greek term “nous” (????) for divine “intelligence” and Plato and his “creationist manifesto”. A fine-tuned universe demands a tuner. Natural selection has great difficulty explaining irreducible complexity without a designer. Even specified complexity and intricate coding much greater than any man-made computer code, as is seen in DNA is hard to explain without a designer.
Weaknesses of the intelligent design movement are that some Christians believe that it reduces God to a mere impersonal engineer, and some intelligent design proponents avoid including the Bible in their arguments. Another weakness is that many scientists reject intelligent design as not able to be tested empirically. Yet, Christians who are scientists complain of discrimination which excludes opinions of those who believe in intelligent design.
The faith of Christians is not blind, but takes the best available evidence and draws a conclusion, as do those who claim to have faith in science. Christian and scientific faith take those parts of knowledge that are missing, and draw a conclusion (Hebrews 11:1). In this, faith and science agree. We see in part and draw a conclusion upon what we know.
Romans 1 makes a bold claim, that not believing in God is a decision made independent of the facts, by those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and the motive is to excuse vile passions and a long list of human evils. It claims that the evidence for God is everywhere and obvious, “but they did not like to retain God in their knowledge” or science (Romans 1:28 NKJV).
While some treat the Bible as a menu, picking and choosing what parts they want to believe, Jesus said that the scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). Paul claimed that all scripture is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) which would include all of Genesis. Peter wrote that no prophecy of scripture was through the act of human will, but that men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21).
Creation Events
Is this true or not? What happened on day one? How long was that day?
God said, “Let there be light.” And so light appeared. God saw how good the light was. God separated the light from the darkness. God named the light Day and the darkness Night. There was evening and there was morning: the first day. (Genesis 1:3-5 CEB)
Does this contradict day four? Actually it’s not that simple. The word light here is a totally different word to the light of day four. Here it is “owr” meaning illumination, and in verses 14-16 it is the root “meor” meaning a light source. Is this a lesson about God being the ultimate source of spiritual light, or is it a picture of a cloudy planet with the sun and moon only visible on day four? Does Revelation give a possible clue?
Never again will night appear, and no one who lives there will ever need a lamp or the sun. The Lord God will be their light, and they will rule forever. (Revelation 22:5 CEV)
The word day is clearly defined in this context by the words evening and morning. Some may argue that a day is like a thousand years, but isn’t that a totally different context, speaking of God’s patience?
Dear friends, don’t let this one thing escape you: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:8-9 HCSB)
Is the following a description of the atmosphere with its clouds?
Then God said, “Let there be a canopy between bodies of water, separating bodies of water from bodies of water!” So God made a canopy that separated the water beneath the canopy from the water above it. And that is what happened: God called the canopy “sky.” The twilight and the dawn were the second day. (Genesis 1:6-8 ISV)
What happened on the third day? Was it good? A kind approximates a family, not a species. Is there any proof that one kind of plant has ever evolved into another completely different kind? Some scientists say yes; some say no.
And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Genesis 1:9-13 KJV)
What happened on the fourth day? Was it also good?
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; and they shall serve as lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:14-19 NASB)
What happened on the fifth day? Was it also good?
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20-23 NIV)
What took place early on the sixth day? Was it good? Kind approximates a family of creatures or birds or animals with a variety of species. Variation within a family is observable science. Changing from one kind to another is not observable science.
Then God said, “Let the earth produce every sort of animal, each producing offspring of the same kind—livestock, small animals that scurry along the ground, and wild animals.” And that is what happened. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:24-25 NLT)
What took place later that sixth day? Was it not just good, but very good?
God said, “Let’s make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so. God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. (Genesis 1:26-31 WEB)
When God said “Let us make mankind” who are the “us”? Some popular theories are that the “us” are 1) God and the angels, 2) that the word “us” adumbrates (indicates faintly) the Trinity, 3) this is a leftover from earlier polytheistic accounts, which I personally doubt, or 4) God uses the royal plural. We can only speculate, but from a Christian point of view, a hint at the Trinity seems to be a likely explanation.
Is it possible for an infinite God to create everything that exists within the space of a week? Is the creation account literal history, allegory, a polemic, mythical history, majestic prose or something else? You decide!
