{"id":13687,"date":"2012-06-22T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2012-06-22T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/reasons.org\/publications\/defending-concordism-response-to-the-lost-world-of-genesis-one\/"},"modified":"2012-06-22T09:00:00","modified_gmt":"2012-06-22T09:00:00","slug":"defending-concordism-response-to-the-lost-world-of-genesis-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/christianity\/bible\/defending-concordism-response-to-the-lost-world-of-genesis-one","title":{"rendered":"Defending Concordism: Response to The Lost World of Genesis One"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/p>\n

Since its 2009 release, John H. Walton\u2019s The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate<\/i>,1<\/sup> has consistently ranked among the best-selling faith and science books. It has received glowing endorsements from prominent theologians such as N. T. Wright, Bruce Waltke, Tremper Longman III, and scientists Francis Collins, founder of BioLogos and director of the National Institutes of Health, and Davis Young, professor emeritus of geology at Calvin College, all of whom identify themselves as theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists.<\/p>\n

The book\u2019s title comes from Walton\u2019s belief that Genesis 1 \u201cis not written to us\u201d (p. 21) but rather to the ancient Israelites in the context of the worldview of antiquity. Walton, a professor of Old Testament theology at Wheaton College, suggests that until recently with the recovery of ancient world literature from the sands of the Middle East, it was not possible to come to a \u201cright reading\u201d of the text since \u201cthe worldview of antiquity was lost\u201d (p. 171).<\/p>\n

In his book, Walton agrees with young-earth creationists that of the four different literal definitions2<\/sup> of y\u00f4m<\/i> (the Hebrew word translated as \u201cday\u201d) the correct definition for the creation \u201cdays\u201d in Genesis 1 is that they \u201care seven twenty-four-hour days\u201d (p. 91). Nevertheless, Walton rejects young-earth creationism for its untenable science3<\/sup> and for being \u201ctoo narrow in their reading of words such as \u2018create\u2019 (bara<\/i>) and \u2018made\u2019 (asa<\/i>).\u201d4<\/sup> He writes, \u201cThe seven days are not given as the period of time over which the material cosmos came into existence, but the period of time devoted to the inauguration of the functions of the cosmic temple\u201d (p. 92).<\/p>\n

Walton also rejects old-earth creationism, including Reasons To Believe\u2019s day-age creationism<\/a>, the framework view<\/a>, and various gap theories<\/a>.5<\/sup> He is critical, too, of the intelligent design movement<\/a>.6<\/sup><\/p>\n

What position does Walton support, then? The book\u2019s endorsements would indicate theistic evolution, though Walton doesn\u2019t commit to a type. Walton says the deistic<\/i> view (\u201cGod is seen as responsible for \u2018jump-starting\u2019 the evolutionary process and then letting it unwind through the eons\u201d) of theistic evolution \u201cgives too much to the ongoing functions of creation as well as rendering them too independent from God\u201d (p.120). On the other hand, he states that the interventionist<\/i> view (\u201cGod is sometimes viewed as involved more regularly at critical junctures to accomplish major jumps in evolution\u201d) of theistic evolution \u201ctreats the functionality of natural processes too lightly, as being inadequate to accomplish God\u2019s purposes\u201d (p. 120). He suggests instead that \u201cGod might be working alongside or through physical and biological processes in a way that science cannot detect\u201d (p. 120).<\/p>\n

This last statement appears to define (or at least come close to defining) Walton\u2019s position, which one might call the hidden<\/i> view. However, he states that his book, \u201cis not promoting evolution\u201d (p. 165, emphasis in original) and that \u201cbiological evolution \u2026is superfluous to the Bible and theology\u201d (p. 166). According to Walton\u2019s interpretation, the Bible does not address either the origin or history of life, therefore \u201cvery little found in evolutionary theory would be objectionable\u201d (p. 170).<\/p>\n

No other book in recent times (aside, perhaps, from Francis Collins\u2019 The Language of God<\/i>) has persuaded more Christian leaders and Bible scholars to adopt some form of theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. Consequently, The Lost World of Genesis One<\/i> has prompted the writing of several dozen reviews from across the creation\/evolution spectrum.<\/p>\n

Concordism<\/strong>
\nOne reason for adding yet another review to the already long list is that many readers of Walton\u2019s book see it as a polemic against concordism and, in particular, the Reasons To Believe concordist view of Scripture. In my personal interactions with Walton he left little doubt that he opposes our attempts at RTB to integrate the book of nature with the books of Scripture. In the first of eighteen propositions presented in The Lost World<\/i> Walton says this about concordism: \u201cConcordists believe the Bible must agree\u2013be in concord with\u2013all the findings of contemporary science\u201d (p. 19).<\/p>\n

This definition marginalizes RTB\u2019s view. No scholar here holds that position. Walton\u2019s definition seems to target a subset of the concordist view: hard<\/i> concordism.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the distinction? Hard concordists look to make most, but not all, discoveries, new and old, in science agree with some passage of Scripture. Soft<\/i> concordists seek agreement between properly interpreted Scripture passages that describe some aspect of the natural realm and indisputably and well-established data in science. RTB holds the latter view.<\/p>\n

RTB\u2019s soft concordism agrees with Walton that a literalistic hermeneutic does not apply to all Bible passages. It also agrees with Walton that we must always guard ourselves from reading more into the biblical text than what the text actually warrants. When we overreach, we set ourselves up for possible embarrassment and the church at large for possible ridicule. Scientific and\/or historical research could prove our overreaching interpretation incorrect.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, to read less<\/i> into the biblical text than what the text teaches can also be a problem. Secularists often interpret such responses as believers conceding that Scripture cannot withstand objective testing. Either way, the Bible\u2019s truth claims are damaged. Furthermore, by reading less into the text, believers lose out on truth that they can apply for Christian living and for Christian witness.<\/p>\n

What are Christian apologists to do, then, with the Bible? None of us can claim to have a complete, unbiased, and perfectly interpreted understanding of everything the Bible teaches. The same goes for the book of nature. We are human. But, the Bible calls us in our humanity to be good theologians and good scientists. We are to diligently and thoroughly research both of God\u2019s books and through careful application of the biblical testing method (a.k.a the scientific method)7<\/sup> develop the best and most complete interpretations of God\u2019s books. If we overreach, we humbly back up. If we underreach, we courageously move forward. As we press forward to gain more truth, we submit our hypotheses of new truth to rigorous objective testing.<\/p>\n

In proposition eleven Walton again seems to marginalize RTB\u2019s biblical creation model. He writes, \u201cThey [concordists] might conclude that if the big bang really happened as a mechanism for the origins of the universe, it must be included in the biblical account of the origins of the universe. So concordists will attempt to determine where the big bang fits into the biblical record and what words could be understood to express it (even if in rather mystical or subtle ways)\u201d (p. 105).<\/p>\n

Apparently, Walton is unaware of the details of how I became a Christian. I was not raised in a Christian home. When I first gave the Bible a serious read, I was expecting it to be like all the other holy books of the world\u2019s religions: skimpy on scientific details and largely incorrect in its descriptions of the natural realm. I was not looking for big bang cosmology in the Bible and at that time that cosmic model was far from being firmly established by astronomical research. I was surprised that the Bible taught the fundamentals of big bang cosmology (cosmic beginning including a beginning of space, time, matter, and energy; cosmic expansion, and constant physical laws including a pervasive law of decay) not in a mystical or subtle way but explicitly and repeatedly. At the time, I saw nothing inconsistent with what the Bible taught about the universe and what astronomers had firmly established about the beginning, history, and structure of the universe. I did wonder, though, how the Bible\u2019s specifically stated cosmological claims would fare as astronomical research advanced.<\/p>\n

My point is that we soft concordists at Reasons To Believe have not tried to force-fit big bang cosmology into the Bible. But, neither are we embarrassed or unduly concerned to find it there. From our perspective it is plainly taught in the Bible, not just in Genesis but in many other Old and New Testament books. Thus, if astronomers were to prove beyond any shadow of doubt, for example, that the universe did not have a beginning (that it was not created), that truth would be catastrophic to our belief that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. It also would demand a major alteration in our theology of God.<\/p>\n

Walton worries that big bang cosmology\u2014like everything else in science\u2014is too unstable, too changeable for any Christian to risk incorporating any of it into one\u2019s theological model. That concern and its implications will be addressed later in this response.<\/p>\n

Is the Bible\u2019s Science Culturally Constrained?<\/strong>
\nAnother place where our soft concordism parts company with Walton is when he avers that the Genesis 1 \u201ctext does not offer scientific explanations,\u201d (p. 107); and second, he asserts, \u201cThrough the entire Bible, there is not a single sentence in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity\u201d (p. 19). We also disagree with Walton\u2019s view that, with respect to cosmic geography, the Bible is \u201cculturally descriptive rather than revealed truth\u201d and that God \u201cwas content for them [the Israelites] to retain the native ancient cosmic geography\u201d (p. 18).<\/p>\n

Walton\u2019s conclusion that the Bible is devoid of scientific content\u2014save for assigning functions to a few components of the natural realm\u2014is an idea that runs counter to how ancient and modern-day scholars, believers and nonbelievers alike, viewed the Bible. We retain from the early church fathers about two thousand pages of their written commentary on Genesis 1, far more than what they wrote on any other chapter of the Bible. Those two thousand pages predominantly describe material origins (see sidebar, Why Genesis 1 Must Be an Account of Natural History) in contrast to Walton\u2019s contention that \u201cGenesis One was never intended to offer an account of material origins\u201d (p. 113). The British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who remained opposed to Christianity throughout his life nevertheless conceded, \u201cThere is a good deal of cosmology in the Bible. …It is a remarkable conception.\u201d8<\/sup><\/p>\n

Why Genesis 1 Must Be an Account of Natural History<\/strong><\/center><\/p>\n

It is extremely contrived, if not impossible, to deny Genesis 1\u2019s description of a sequence of physical events, the passage of time, and natural history if one pays attention to the plain language and grammar of Genesis 1. The creation days are numbered and different components of the physical creation are described on each of those days. The repeated refrain, \u201cand there was evening and there was morning,\u201d which concludes the description of each of the first six creation days, establishes that there was a point in time when each creation day began and a later point in time when that day ended. The fact that the seventh day, God\u2019s rest period, lacks the phrase \u201cand there was evening and there was morning\u201d in addition to other passages in Scripture, (such as Psalm 95, John 5, and Hebrews 4) that refer to God\u2019s seventh day as an epoch proceeding through the present and on into the future, adds more evidence that each creation day sequentially follows after the preceding one.<\/p>\n

The grammatical use of the Hebrew Waw<\/i>-consecutive throughout Genesis 1, decisively argues for the sequential and chronological nature of the creation days. Another decisive point in favor of Genesis 1 as chronological description of nature is the use of the word \u201cbeginning\u201d in Genesis 1:1 and the words \u201ccompleted\u201d and \u201cfinished\u201d in Genesis 2:1\u20132. In addition to the numbering of the creation days and the implication of the repeated evening\u2013morning phrases (indicating that each day has a start time and an end time), throughout Genesis 1, we also find the repetition of the phrases \u201cand God said,\u201d and \u201cit is good.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reading Genesis 1, whether in the original Hebrew or in the English translation, it seems like Moses, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is doing everything he can possibly do to communicate the fact that Genesis 1 is a chronological account of natural history. Indeed, no other chapter in the entire Bible has so many embedded chronological cues. This wealth of sequential markers explains why individuals throughout all epochs of the Christian era\u2013whether they be seekers or skeptics, who come to the Bible independent of any previous exposure to Christianity or the Christian community\u2013so ubiquitously interpret Genesis 1 as a chronology of physical creation events.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

During my youth when I examined the \u201choly\u201d books upon which the major religions of the world are based, I was struck by how they all address material origins and material history. The Bible, however, stood head and shoulders above the rest in both the quantity and specificity of its science\/creation content.<\/p>\n

To conclude that interpretations of the Bible\u2019s science\/creation content were wrong prior to the discoveries in recent times of ancient Middle Eastern literature seems to demean the inspiration of Scripture. If the Bible is indeed God\u2019s message to humanity, would He not inspire the human authors in such a manner that their writings would communicate truth, and nothing but truth, to all generations?<\/p>\n

To us at RTB, the sheer quantity of the Bible\u2019s science\/creation content (which extends beyond Genesis 1\u201311) demands some kind of concordist theology. Our soft concordism is not limited to Genesis 1\u201311. It seeks a consistent interpretation of all the Bible\u2019s texts that describe the origin, history, and present state of the natural realm. For example, it works to integrate the science\/creation content of Genesis 1 and 2 with that found in Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Romans, Hebrews, and Revelation.<\/p>\n

In particular, it notes that while Job 37\u201339, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8 are not written as chronologies of natural history, they all, nonetheless, describe the material nature of each of God\u2019s creative acts that are outlined in Genesis 1 but typically in much more scientific detail. The fact that three lengthy biblical texts in three separate biblical books specifically address the material content of the six creation days, argues against Walton\u2019s premise that Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible \u201cwas never intended to offer an account of material origins.\u201d It also argues that God intended for us to constructively integrate the content of the Bible\u2019s sixty-six books and implies that we should integrate Scripture with nature\u2019s book.<\/p>\n

The Bible and Mainstream Science<\/strong>
\nThe concordist approach we use at Reasons To Believe looks for agreement between Scriptural passages addressing nature and the indisputably established facts of nature. However, it sees no need to always agree with mainstream or contemporary science.<\/p>\n

We note that the level of agreement with mainstream science actually provides a useful tool for distinguishing young-earth creationism, theistic evolution, evolutionary creationism, and RTB\u2019s day-age creationism. Young-earth creationists acknowledge that their interpretation of Scripture stands in conflict with virtually all of mainstream science.9<\/sup> In fact, some appear to view their opposition to mainstream science as a badge of honor and courage.10<\/sup><\/p>\n

On the other hand, theistic evolutionists, evolutionary creationists, and, most pointedly, John Walton, seem reluctant to adopt a position that could possibly be viewed as opposing (at any point) mainstream science. Their motivation, it seems, is to protect the credibility and integrity of the Christian community from possible assaults from secular scholarship.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the difference between theistic evolution and evolutionary creation? Every evolutionary creationist I have met believes in all of the miracles recorded in the Old and New Testaments that occurred in human history from the time of Abraham up to the time of the apostle John on the island of Patmos. Their reluctance to invoke miracles only applies to that which the scientific enterprise can possibly put to the test, for example: the origin of life, new kinds of life, and humanity. Many, but not all, theistic evolutionists express doubts about some<\/i> of the miracles that the Bible describes taking place in the lives of Jews and Gentiles from the time of Abraham to John. Thus, there are varying degrees of overlap between the two positions.<\/p>\n

Our position at Reasons To Believe is that the noetic effects of the fall must be taken into account in evaluating the claims of mainstream science. The noetic effects are the various ways that sin negatively impacts and undermines human thinking and conclusions about reality. These effects are most evident where it pertains to human beliefs about God and God\u2019s authority over the lives of humans. It is virtually nonexistent where the God factor is not an issue, such as in how to design and build a microwave oven.<\/p>\n

Therefore, RTB anticipates that a majority of mainstream scientists will reject most of the components of our biblical creation model. Nevertheless, we expect a large minority to accept<\/i> them. This expectation, in our opinion, keeps within Jesus\u2019 message that a majority of the world\u2019s population will reject Him and His revelations of truth while a significant minority from every people group will accept Him and His revelations through Scripture and nature.11<\/sup> It\u2019s important to add that our disagreements with mainstream science typically do not concern the scientifically established databases but rather the interpretations of what those databases imply concerning the causal agents responsible for the data.<\/p>\n

Biblical Inspiration and Inerrancy<\/strong> Similar to all of us at RTB, Walton declares his belief in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. However, the manner in which he sustains his belief is quite different from ours. Rather than seeing the Bible as full of content about the origin, history, and present state of the natural realm, Walton sees such content as being limited to what Old Testament authors knew from ancient Near Eastern literature and culture. This perspective is consistent with Walton\u2019s academic career at Wheaton, which was built upon numerous books and articles interpreting the Old Testament in light of ancient Near Eastern literature and culture.<\/p>\n

In The Lost World<\/i> Walton takes this limited scientific revelation interpretation of the Bible to an extreme and writes, \u201cIsraelites received no revelation to update or modify their ‘scientific’ understanding of the cosmos\u201d (p. 16). Walton also asserts, \u201cThrough the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity\u201d (p. 19).<\/p>\n

Apparently, Walton sustains his belief in biblical inerrancy by stripping the Bible of any science content beyond what was known at the time of antiquity. His stratagem, however, seriously weakens his case for biblical inspiration. If the Bible has no predictive power when it comes to science, how can a secular reader of Scripture draw the conclusion that the Bible is anything other than a set of documents inspired by mere men? Walton might respond that the Bible has predictive power when it comes to human history (fulfilled prophecy) but none when it pertains to natural history or the current status of the natural realm. Such a posture seems incoherent and hermeneutically inconsistent with a God who desires to reveal Himself to all people. It also appears incompatible with a multitude of Bible passages declaring the pervasive extent to which the record of nature reveals God and His attributes.<\/p>\n

I also wonder about the extent of Walton\u2019s commitment to biblical inerrancy. He writes, \u201cGod …was content for them [the Israelites] to retain the ancient cosmic geography\u201d (p. 18). He also states in the first of his eighteen propositions: \u201cGenesis 1 is ancient cosmology\u201d (p. 21).<\/p>\n

Today we know that virtually all of this ancient cosmology is incorrect. Later, Walton appears to soften his stance, \u201cThe view presented in this book has emphasized the similarities between the ways the Israelites thought and the ideas reflected in the ancient world, rather than the differences\u201d (p. 104). Walton gives an example of one of these similarities, the belief in the existence of a dome that he claims Genesis 1:6\u20138 says held up the waters above and onto which the stellar lights are placed.12<\/sup><\/p>\n

Apparently, Walton does believe that some biblical texts contain scientific errors. He sees, however, no refutation of biblical inerrancy in this stance. According to Walton, biblical statements concerning the description of the natural realm reflect the assumptions of the biblical author\u2019s contemporaries, not the teaching of Scripture. That is, the biblical author is accurately describing the beliefs of his contemporaries. However, evidently it is up to the human reader of Scripture to decide which parts of Scripture contain the assumptions of the human authors, faulty or otherwise, and which comprise the error-free teachings of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n

I would accept Walton\u2019s formulation of biblical inerrancy if<\/i> the biblical authors had clarified at which points they were describing the mistaken beliefs of their contemporaries apart from the times when they were declaring truth from God. The prophets from Isaiah to Malachi did this consistently. However, in the Genesis creation texts, as well as those in Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, no such distinctions appear. In Genesis 1 the phrase, \u201cand God said,\u201d appears six times and the phrase, \u201cthen God said,\u201d twice. Not once do we see anything in the text akin to \u201cyou say\u201d or \u201cthe peoples around you say.\u201d What disturbs me about Walton\u2019s interpretation of Genesis 1 is that it displays God as parroting human errors.<\/p>\n

Walton\u2019s position on biblical inerrancy departs markedly from ours at Reasons To Believe. We think the assembly of more than two hundred theologians and Christian leaders that made up the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy13<\/sup> performed an admirable job in producing a set of detailed statements on what biblical inerrancy is and what it is not. We support and endorse the affirmations and denials<\/a> published by the ICBI based on three summits held in 1978, 1982, and 1988.14<\/sup><\/p>\n

Agreement With\/Polemic Against Ancient Cosmology Myths?<\/strong>
\nMany theologians argue that knowing the historical and cultural genre of a Bible book’s authorship is the key to interpreting that book. Since the Israelites, under Moses\u2019 leadership, may have been plagued with the creation cosmology myths of heathen nations surrounding them, many such theologians read the Genesis creation texts as predominantly, or exclusively as a polemic against Near Eastern religious cosmologies.15<\/sup><\/p>\n

In this view, the scientific details and chronology of events in the six creation days are largely irrelevant. Instead, showing the difference between the blatant political agendas of the pagan myths and the complete lack thereof in Genesis\u2014as well as the difference between the foibles of immoral pagan gods in their creative efforts and the goodness and moral perfection of the good God of the Bible\u2014is the most important.<\/p>\n

Walton and RTB agree that Genesis 1 is not predominantly polemical. He states that \u201cthe author of Genesis 1 is not explicitly arguing with the other views\u2013he is simply offering his own view\u201d (p. 104) He adds, \u201cThe view presented in this book has emphasized the similarities between the ways the Israelites thought and the ideas reflected in the ancient world, rather than the differences (as emphasized in the polemical interpretation)\u201d (p. 104).<\/p>\n

There are two major dilemmas in viewing the Genesis creation texts as either essentially limited to a polemic against Near Eastern creation myths or largely agreeing with those myths. First, these views presume that the ancient Israelites had little or no interest in how a particular creation story corresponds with physical reality in terms of its details and chronology.<\/p>\n

The truth is that all humans through the ages, from toddlers to the very elderly, from those completely lacking in formal education to those possessing the most advanced degrees, have manifested intense curiosity about such issues. Testifying to this fact is the pervasiveness of creation accounts, legends, and myths evident in all cultures16<\/sup> and the ubiquity of attempted explanations of natural history in these stories and in scholarly works throughout the human era.<\/p>\n

The second predicament is that the Bible declares itself to be a revelation to all generations,17<\/sup> not just the generation in which its biblical human author lived. It also declares that additional messages bearing significance only for future generations would be embedded in the inspired words of ancient prophets. As Peter explains, \u201cIt was revealed to them [the prophets] that they were serving not themselves, but you.\u201d18<\/sup><\/p>\n

The Bible, as a book for all generations, would be a book devoid of meaningful vocabulary for only a few or several generations. At the same time, to some degree, it would be a book that would impart an additional message or messages to succeeding generations. It is to be expected, therefore, that the Bible\u2019s creation texts, including those in Genesis, will contain content that progressively reveals more insight to successive generations. It should serve as a polemic, not only against the pagan creation myths of Moses\u2019 generation, but also against the distorted accounts of natural history promulgated by unbelievers throughout all generations.<\/p>\n

This perspective of the Bible matches the manner in which God\u2019s second book reveals truth to humanity. The famous reformation creedal document, the Belgic Confession, in its second article states the consistency and compatibility of God\u2019s two books: the book of nature and the book of Scripture.19<\/sup> Therefore, we would expect that just like the book of nature reveals God and His attributes to all generations and where each succeeding generation\u2014through their ongoing research\u2014gains more truth about God, His attributes, and His creation, the same would also be true of Scripture.<\/p>\n

Functional Origins Only?<\/strong>
\nWalton insists, in The Lost World<\/i>, that \u201cGenesis One was never intended to offer an account of material origins\u201d (p. 113) and that \u201cthe text does not offer scientific explanations\u201d (p. 107). Later, he extends this limitation to the entire Bible.20<\/sup> He claims \u201cthe material cosmos was of little significance to them [ancient Israelites] when it came to questions of origins\u201d (p.113). He concludes, \u201cScience cannot offer an unbiblical view or material origins because there is no biblical view of material origins\u201d (p. 113).<\/p>\n

In Walton\u2019s view, what is Genesis 1 all about? He sees it as \u201can account of functional origins, specifically focusing on the functioning of the cosmos as God\u2019s temple\u201d (p. 93). That is, Genesis describes the functions of the universe, Earth, and Earth\u2019s life (plants, animals, and humans), not their material nature, nor their origins or historical developments. Genesis 1, according to Walton, \u201clooks to the future …rather than to the past\u201d (p. 118). Consequently, for Walton it is biblically irrelevant what science discovers about the origin, history, or current state of the universe, Earth, and Earth\u2019s life. He writes, \u201cWhatever explanation scientists may offer in their attempts to explain origins, we could theoretically adopt as a description of God\u2019s handiwork\u201d (p. 132).<\/p>\n

Creation Time Scales?<\/strong>
\nPart of Walton\u2019s rationale for his claim that Genesis 1 is limited to describing the function of creation is that he is persuaded that of the four literal definitions for the Hebrew word y\u00f4m<\/i> (part of the daylight hours, all of the daylight hours, a 24-hour period, and a long but finite period of time) translated as \u201cday,\u201d the appropriate definition for the seven creation days in Genesis 1 is consecutive 24-hour epochs. He writes that the creation days in Genesis 1 are \u201cseven twenty-four hour days\u201d (p. 91) and that attempts to understand the days as long eras \u201chas never been convincing\u201d (p. 91). (See sidebar, How Long Are the Genesis Creation Days?)<\/p>\n

How Long Are the Genesis Creation Days?<\/strong><\/center><\/p>\n

In Genesis 1 the first six creation days are bracketed by an evening and a morning. That is, each day has a definite beginning point and end point. For the seventh day, however, the phrase \u201cevening was and morning was\u201d is omitted. The seventh day is when God ceases from His work of physical creation activity. According to Psalm 95, John 5, and Hebrews 4, God\u2019s seventh day continues through the present and on into the future. It will not end, according to Revelation 20\u201321, until evil has been completely conquered and removed. That we are still in the seventh day explains why present-day science fails to find scientific evidence of God\u2019s supernatural intervention in the contemporary natural realm, whereas such evidence is abundant for those eras (the first six creation days) predating God\u2019s creation of Adam and Eve. Clearly, the seventh creation day must be a period of time exceeding many thousands of years.<\/p>\n

In Genesis 1 God creates humans, one male and one female, during the latter part of creation day six. However, in Genesis 2 a long sequence of events occurs between God creating Adam, the first male, and Eve, the first woman.<\/p>\n