Different interpretations of
Genesis
Different interpretations of the
Creation story
• There are three main ways of
interpreting Genesis 1–3.
• These interpretations are
sometimes categorised
as literalist,
• conservative
• and liberal.
20XX
presentation title
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC
2
• Some Christians are
literalists.
• This means they believe the
Bible is the actual word of
God.
• They also believe that
Genesis 1 and 2 are true and
accurate descriptions of how
the world was created and
should be taken literally.
• Literalists reject scientific
theories such as the Big
20XX Bang and evolution
presentation title
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
3
• Some Christians are
conservatives.
• This means they do not think
the Bible was actually written by
God – instead, they believe that
the writers of the Bible were
inspired by God’s actions.
• They interpret Genesis 1 as fact
but believe each day was
actually an era that lasted
millions or billions of years.
• They might see Genesis 2 and 3
as a poetic explanation of how
evil came into the world.
20XX
presentation title
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY
4
• Some Christians are liberals who
interpret the Bible metaphorically.
• They accept that the Bible will have
contradictions within it, as it was
written by humans and so is
imperfect.
• These Christians will accept scientific
theories about the origins of the
universe, such as the Big Bang theory.
• What is important for these Christians,
is the message of the Genesis
account of creation, which is that God
created the world, and gave humans a
special role, status and purpose in it.
•
20XX
presentation title
5
Other “Interpretations” of
Genesis
• The Gap Theory
• This was the first attempt to harmonize
the biblical account of creation with the
idea of vast ages.
• It claims that a huge time gap (perhaps
several billion years) exists
between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
• In the most popular “ruin-andreconstruction” version, it is said that
during this time Satan rebelled and
led creation in rebellion against God.
• As a result, God destroyed this
original creation with the flood of Lucifer.
• Gap theorists believe that Genesis
1:2 describes the conditions of the world
following this flood.
20XX
• A young Presbyterian minister, Thomas
Chalmers, began to preach this idea in
1804.
• In 1814, he published this idea and the
gap theory began to enjoy a great deal of
acceptance in the Church.
• Gap theorists often argue that the word
translated as “was” in most English
versions of Genesis 1:2 should actually be
translated “became” as in “the
Earth became formless and void.”
• However, this is unwarranted by context.
The gap theory suffers from a number of
hermeneutical problems.
presentation title
6
• Third, most versions of the
gap theory put death and
suffering long before Adam’s
sin.
• So the gap theory suffers
from many of the same
doctrinal problems as the
day-age view.
• For a full refutation of the gap
theory, please read Unformed
and Unfilled by Weston W.
Fields.1
presentation title
• First, time cannot be inserted
between Genesis
1:1 and Genesis 1:2 because
verse 2 does not follow verse 1
in time.
• verse 2 is describing the
conditions of the earth when it
was first created.
• Hebrew grammar does not allow
for the insertion of vast periods
of time between Genesis
1:1 and 1:2.
20XX
7
• Theistic Evolution
• This view claims
that God used evolution as a
means of bringing about
His creation.
• Conservative Christians typically
reject this idea because it attacks
the idea that Adam was made in
the image of God and from the
dust of the earth.
• Instead, he and Eve simply
evolved from apelike creatures.
• Many liberal scholars accept this
view and see no problem with
incorporating evolutionary
principles into the Bible.
20XX
• Theistic evolution impugns the
character of God by blaming
Him for millions of years of
death, bloodshed, disease, and
suffering.
• A world with these things in it
could hardly be called “very
good.”
• As with day-age and gap
theories, theistic evolution is not
supported by Scripture, and has
numerous doctrinal problems.
presentation title
8
• The Day-Age Theory
• This view is appropriately named. Its
proponents claim that each of the days of
creation was an extremely long period of time.
In support of this view, they usually
quote Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, which state
“one day is as a thousand years.”
• The problem with citing these verses is that
they are not even referring to creation.
• The problem with citing these verses is that
they are not even referring to creation.
• The passage in 2 Peter, for example, is
referring to the Second Coming.
• These verses are simply teaching that God is
not limited by time.
• He is beyond the confines of His creation, not
bound by it.
20XX
• The day-age theory became popular after George
Stanley Faber, a respected Anglican bishop, began
to teach it in 1823.
• For the past two centuries, this view has been
tweaked to accommodate changing scientific beliefs.
• Some day-age proponents believe in
theistic evolution; others believe in
“progressive creation” as described below.
• The day-age view is based on a hermeneutical error
called an “unwarranted expansion of an expanded
semantic field.”
• In other words, it is assumed that because the
Hebrew word for “day” can mean “time” (in a general
sense) in some contexts, then it is permissible to
interpret it to mean “time” in Genesis 1.
• However, as we’ve shown in this book, the context of
Genesis 1 does not allow for such a possibility.
•
presentation title
9
• Progressive Creation
• This version of old-earth creationism is
probably the most popular of the
compromise views in the Church today.
• Most progressive creationists are also
day-age supporters; they believe that
each of the creation days was a long
period of time.
• However, rather than accepting
biological evolution, progressive
creationists believe that God created in
stages over many millions of years.
• They believe that God created certain
animals millions of years ago and then
they died out.
• Then God created more animals that died
out. Eventually, He got around to making
humans.
20XX
• Although many progressive creationists
reject biological evolution, they generally
accept astronomical and
geological evolution.
• Like theistic evolutionists, progressive
creationists believe in millions of years of
death, disease, suffering, and bloodshed
before Adam’s sin.
• Such positions inevitably undermine
the Gospel message.
presentation title
10
• The framework hypothesis] takes
the Genesis account of Creation as
a theological framework rather
than a strictly historical,
chronological account.
• It is important to note that
proponents of the framework view
do not deny that the people and
events alluded to in the Creation
account are essentially historical.
• It should be obvious, however, that
in denying the historical and
chronological nature of the
account, they have very little basis
for this acceptance.
20XX
presentation title
11
• Other Views
• There have been other attempts to
synchronize the Bible’s account of
creation with the evolutionary
viewpoint.
• Two of these views have
diminished in popularity in the past
few decades.
• The revelatory day view states that
God gave Moses a series of
visions of His creative work.
• These visions lasted for six days.
• The obvious problem with this view
is that there is absolutely no
scriptural support for it
20XX
• . The Bible never even hints that
this may have been the case, so
it is based on a lack of
evidence. The other view is
called the literal-day-with-gaps.
• This view states that each of the
days of creation was a literal
day, but there were huge gaps
of time in between each day.
• This view suffers from many of
the same problems as the dayage theory and the gap theory.
presentation title
12