ENCYCLOPEDIA  OF  BIBLE  DIFFICULTIES


by  Gleason L.  And  Archer  Jr.



Genesis

How can Genesis 1 be reconciled with theistic 


evolution?



[THE  FIRST  VERSE “IN THE BEGINNING  GOD  CREATED  THE  HEAVENS  AND  THE  EARTH” FENTON  IN  HIS  TRANSLATION  SAYS  “BEGINNING”  IS  IN  THE  PLURAL “BEGINNINGS”  OR  AS  HE  TRANSLATED  IT  “BY  PERIODS”  GOD…..

THIS  MEANS  GOD  DID  NOT  MAKE  THE  HEAVENS  AS  WE  NOW  SEE  IT  THROUGH  THINGS  LIKE  THE  HUBBLE  SPACE  TELESCOPE.  THE  HEAVENS  GREW  AND  CHANGED,  AS  IT  DOES  TODAY  WITH  THE  FORMING  OF  STARTS  AND  THE  DEATH  OF  STARS  ETC.  MAYBE  GOD  CREATED  DIFFERENT  PARTS  OF  THE  HEAVENS  AT  DIFFERENT  TIMES.  THEM  MAYBE  HE  SET  THE  HEAVENS  TO  MOVE  OUT  AND  EXPAND,  AS  THEY  ARE  EXPANDING  TODAY,  WITH  EVER  INCREASING  SPEED.  IT  IS  QUITE  POSSIBLE  THE  UNIVERSE  DID  NOT  BEGIN  FROM  A  TINY  SPECK  OF  WHATEVER  AND  THEN  A  “BIG  BAND”  TOOK  PLACE.  SCIENCE  SEEING  THE  EVERY  EXPANDING  UNIVERSE  AS  NOW  IS,  TAKES  IT  ALL  BACK-LOOKING  AND  THINKS  IT  GOES  BACK  TO  A  PARTICULAR  SPECK  OF  SOMETHING  HARDLY  VISIBLE,  AND  IT  EXPLODED  INTO  WHAT  THERE  IS  TODAY,  SPEEDING  OUTWARDS  AND  NOT  SLOWING  DOWN  BUT  EVER  FASTER.  THOUGH  THAT  COULD  BE  POSSIBLE,  IT  MAY  NOT  BE  SO,  BUT  MAYBE  BE  AS  I’VE  GIVEN  ABOVE.  THE  TRUTH  IS  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD  THE  HOW  OF  IT  ALL,  ONLY  THAT  THE  UNIVERSE  AT  ONE  TIME  DID  NOT  EXIST;  IT  CAME  INTO  BEING.  WE  ARE  TOLD  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  THAT  THE  GOD  BEING  WHO  BECAME  JESUS  THE  CHRIST,  WAS  THE  ONE  WHO  SPOKE  AND  IT  WAS  DONE,  UNDER  THE  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  GOD  BEING  WE  TODAY  CALL  “THE  FATHER.”  OTHER  STUDIES  I  GIVE  TO  PROVE  ALL  THIS,  ON  THIS  WEBSITE  -  Keith Hunt]


[“THE  EARTH  WAS  WITHOUT  FORM  AND  VOID.”  I  PROVE  IN  OTHER  STUDIES  THAT  THIS  EARTH  WAS  CREATED  NOT  IN  CHOAS,  BUT  IN  BEAUTY.  OTHER  STUDIES  SHOW  THE  BRILLIANT  IN  COLOR  AND  POWER—— THE  COVERING  CHERUB  AT  GOD’S  THRONE,  WAS  GIVEN  AUTHORITY  OVER  THIS  BEAUTIFUL  CREATED  EARTH.  BUT  HE  REBELLED  AND  WANTED  THE  THRONE  OF  HEAVEN.  THERE  WAS  WAR  IN  THE  HEAVENS;  THE  COVERING  CHERUB  BECAME  SATAN  THE  DEVIL;  HE  MANAGED  TO  GET  1/3  OF  THE  ANGELS  TO  SIDE-UP  WITH  HIM;  THEY  BECAME  DEMONS.  THIS  WAR  RESULTED  IN  THE  SURFACE  OF  THIS  EARTH  BEING  DESTROYED,  AND  COVERED  WITH  WATER.  THE  WORLD  OF  THE  DINOSAURS  CAME  TO  AN  END  VIOLENTLY.  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD  HOW  LONG  THE  WATERS  COVERED  THIS  EARTH;  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  YEARS,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  CENTURIES,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  THOUSANDS  OF  YEARS. THEN  AT  A CERTAIN  TIME  THE  SPIRIT  OF  GOD  MOVED  OVER  THE  FACE  OF  THE  WATERS  AND  SO  WE  HAVE  GENESIS  ONE  VERSE  2  -  Keith Hunt]



In dealing with this question, we must carefully define our terms, for "evolution" is used in various senses by various people. We must distinguish between evolution as a philosophy and evolution as a descriptive mechanism for the development of species from the more primitive to the "higher" or more complex stages in the course of geological history. Furthermore, we must establish what is meant by theistic evolution. Then we will be in a better position to deal with its relationship to the creationism of Genesis 1.


Evolution as a Philosophy


Evolution as a philosophy seeks to explain the physical—and especially the biological—universe as a self-directed development from primeval matter, the origin of which is unknown but which may be regarded as eternally existing without ever having had a beginning. Philosophical evolution rules out any direction or intervention by a personal God and casts doubt on the existence of even an impersonal Higher Power. All reality is governed by unchangeable physical laws, and ultimately it is the product of mere chance. There is no reason for existence nor a real purpose for life. Man has to operate as an end in himself. He is his own ultimate lawgiver and has no moral accountability except to human society. The basis of law and ethics is basically utilitarian—that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number.


Not all these positions were advanced by Charles Darwin himself in his 1859 classic The Origin of Species. And yet the consistent atheism of philosophic evolution was a position he would not espouse, for he believed that a creating God was logically necessary to explain the prior existence of the original primordial ooze out of which the earliest forms of life emerged. It would be more accurate to call him a deist rather than an atheist, even though his system was taken over by those who denied the existence of God. 


[WHAT  IS  NOT  OFTEN  TOLD  IS  THAT  DARWIN  ONCE  CONTEMPLATED  BEING  A  CLERGY-MAN.  HE  WAS  A  BIBLE  READER;  AT  THE  END  OF  HIS  LIFE  HIS  NURSE  TYPE  LADY  LOOKING  AFTER  HIM,  SAID  HE  WAS  ALWAYS  READING  THE  BIBLE,  AND  HE  SHOOK  HIS  HEAD  IN  DISMAY,  AS  TO  HOW  MANY  WERE  RUNNING  WITH  HIS  BOOK  THE  ORIGIN  OF  SPECIES,  AND  SAID  HE  NEVER  INTENDED  THAT  HIS  BOOK  BE  TAKEN  UP  BY  MANY  WHO  WERE  USING  IT  TO  DO  AWAY  WITH  A  GOD  BEING  -  Keith Hunt]


But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power or Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their systems of logic, and all their approaches to reality are the resuit of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.


On the basis of his own presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker's brain.


Evolution as a Descriptive Mechanism


Evolution as a descriptive mechanism refers to that process by which less-advanced forms of life develop into higher forms of greater complexity. This is thought to be brought about by some sort of inner dynamic that, without any outside control or interference, operates according to its own pattern. In Darwin's day it was believed that this development resulted from the accumulation of chance characteristics and the retention of slight variations that arose during the earlier stages of the species' career and were genetically handed down to succeeding generations.


Since Darwin's time, however, this formulation of evolution as a mechanistic process, governed by the principle of the "survival of the fittest," has, for a variety of reasons, lost support in the twentieth century. G.J. Mendel's experiments in plant genetics demonstrated quite conclusively that the range of variation possible within a species was strictly limited and offered no possibility of development into a new and different species. After a large number of experiments as to the inheritability of acquired characteristics, it was finally determined by geneticists at the close of the century that there was absolutely no transmission of acquired traits because there was no way of coding them into the genes of the parent who developed those traits (cf. Robert E.D. Clark, Darwin, Before and After [Chicago: Moody, 1967]).

As for the continual series of transitional species that the Darwinian theory posited to mark the ascent from "lower" to "higher" orders on the ladder of biological development, the most extensive research possible has finally led scientists to the conclusion that there never were such "missing links." Thus Austin H. Clark (The New Evolution [New Haven: Yale, 1930], p. 189) confessed: "If we are willing to accept the facts, we must believe that there never were such intermediates, or in other words, that these major groups have from the very first borne the same relationship to each other that they bear today." Similarly, G.G. Simpson concluded that each of the thirty-two known orders of mammals appeared quite suddenly in the paleontological record. "The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known" (Tempo and Mode in Evolution [New York: Columbia, 1944], p. 106).


Therefore, it was necessary for Clark and Simpson to propose a completely non-Darwinian type of "evolution," which they called the "quantum theory" or "emergent evolution." It declares that dramatically new forms arise by mere chance, or else by some sort of creative response to new environmental factors. No suggestion was offered as to the origin for this capacity for "creative response." From the perspective of Darwinianism, this could hardly be considered evolution at all. As Carl F.H. Henry observed: "Supposition of abrupt emergence falls outside the field of scientific analysis just as fully as the appeal to supernatural creative forces" (R. Mixter, ed., Evolution and Christian Thought Today [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959], p. 211).


As for the developmental series customarily exhibited in textbooks and museums to show how evolution worked with horses and men from the earliest stages of Cenozoic until modern times, it should be understood that they prove absolutely nothing about the mechanism that engineered this development. A continuity of basic design furnishes no evidence whatever that any "lower" species phased into the next "higher" species by any sort of internal dynamic, as evolution demands. For if the museum visitor were to go to another part of that museum of science and industry, he would find a completely analogous series of automobiles, commencing with 1900 and extending up until the present decade. Stage by stage, phase by phase, he could trace the development of the Ford from its earliest Model T prototype to the large and luxurious LTD of the 1970s. Everyone knows that there was a continuity of basic design that altered in definite stages, sometimes with dramatically new features. But he would also be aware that it was the engineers at the Ford Motor Company plants who designed these changes and implemented them through craftsmen who followed their blueprints. The ascent from the eohippus to the modern racing horse can be accounted for in exactly the same way—except that in this case the architect and engineer was the Creator Himself.


Theistic Evolution


Theistic evolution posits the existence of God as Creator of all the material substance of the universe and Designer of all the processes to be followed by the various botanical and zoological orders in the development of His master plan. Unlike the philosophical evolutionist, the theistic evolutionist insists that matter was not eternal but was created by God out of nothing and was controlled in its development by the plan He had devised. In other words, the whole mechanism of the evolutionary process was and is devised and controlled by God rather than by some mysterious and unaccountable force for which there is no explanation.


As we weigh the question of whether theistic evolution can be reconciled with Genesis 1, we have to analyze very carefully whether we are dealing with a deistic or semi-deistic concept of a God who simply sets up the entire system, programming it in advance like some master computer, and then retires to the sidelines to watch the cosmic mechanism work itself out. Such a God is beyond the reach of prayer and takes no active, continuing interest in the needs of His creatures. There is no communication with Him and no salvation from Him; all is locked up in the framework of a rigid determinism.


Or else we may be dealing with a theistic evolution that allows for prayer and personal relationships between man and God, but which conceives of Him as bringing about the ascending biological orders by some kind of evolutionary mechanism that finds its dynamism and direction within itself. In view of the flimsy basis in scientific data for evolution as propounded by Darwin  and  its  virtual  rejection  by “emergent” evolutionists (for these two bear as close a resemblance to each other as American democracy and the "democracy" of Iron Curtain nations today), there seems to be very little ground for even a scientifically minded theist to hang on to evolutionism at all. But if he accepts the implications of the integrity of species according to Mendelian limits, it could perhaps be argued that he keeps faith with the successive stages of creation of plant and animal orders and genera and species "after its kind," as emphasized in Genesis 1:11-12, 21. If he understands the six creative days as intended by the Author to teach a succession of definite stages in the orderly development of the biological world up until the creation of man, then we should concede that this is reconcilable with the basic intent of that chapter.


[YES  IT’S  THE  IDEA  THAT  THE  DAYS  OF  GENESIS  ONE  ARE  “AGES”  NOT  LITERAL  DAYS  -  Keith Hunt]


All this, of course, depends on whether the theistic evolutionist accepts Adam and Eve as literal, historical, created individuals. Many of them do not, but they conceive of Homo sapiens as gradually developing from subhuman hominids and then finally developing a consciousness of God—at which moment, whenever it was, the ape-man became "Adam." Such, for example, was the view of Lecomte de Noiiy in Human Destiny (New York: Longmans, Green & Co., 1947), who suggested that perhaps around 30,000 B.C. the Cro-Magnon became truly man by a sort of spiritual mutation that conferred on him the capacity of responsible moral choice. This type of approach can hardly be reconciled with the presentation of Adam and Eve as historical individuals with personal emotions and responses such as appears in Genesis 2 and 3 (and as certified by 1 Tim. 2:13-14). Any suprahistorical interpretation of Adam, such as is espoused by Neoorthodoxy, is definitely irreconcilable with Holy Scripture and the Evangelical faith.


Helpful Discussions of This General Topic

Anderson, J.K.,  and  Coffin,  H.G.   Fossils  in Focus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977. 

Lammerts, W.E., ed. Why Not Creation? Grand Rapids: Baker, 1970. Morris, H.M. The Twilight of Evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963. Newman,  R.C., and Eckelmann,  H.J.  Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1977. 

Young, E.J. Studies in Genesis One. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973.


How can Genesis 1 be reconciled with the

immense periods of time indicated by fossil

strata?


One of the most frequently argued objections to the trustworthiness of Scripture is found in the apparent discrepancy between the account of creation given in Genesis 1 and the supposed evidence from the fossils and fissionable minerals in the geological strata that indicate Earth is billions of years old. Yet Genesis 1 allegedly teaches that creation took place in six twenty-four-hour days, at the end of which man was already on the earth. But this conflict between Genesis 1 and the factual data of science (in contradistinction to the theories of some scientists who draw inferences from their data that are capable of quite another interpretation by those equally proficient in geology) is only apparent, not real.


To be sure, if we were to understand Genesis 1 in a completely literal fashion—which some suppose to be the only proper principle of interpretation if the Bible is truly inerrant and completely trustworthy—then there would be no possibility of reconciliation between modern scientific theory and the Genesis account. But a true and proper belief in the inerrancy of Scripture involves neither a literal nor a figurative rule of interpretation. What it does require is a belief in whatever the biblical author (human and divine) actually meant by the words he used.


[SO  NOW  WE  GO  INTO  “INTERPRETATIONS  OF  WORDS  AND  PHRASES.”  WE  SHALL  SEE  THE  AUTHORS  ARE  OF  THE  “AGES”  FOR  DAYS,  AND  SO  CAN  CLAIM  GENESIS  1  IS  OVER  POSSIBLE  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS.  THE  IMMEDIATE  FAULT  WITH  THEIR  REASONING  IS  THEY  DO  NOT  SEE  OR  BELIEVE  THAT  BETWEEN  GENESIS  1:1  AND  1:2  THERE  COULD  BE  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS;  BUT  LET  THEM  CONTINUE  -  Keith Hunt]

  

An absolute literalism would, for example, commit us to the proposition that in Matthew 19:24 (and parallel passages) Christ actually meant to teach that a camel could go through the eye of a needle. But it is abundantly clear that Christ was simply using the familiar rhetorical figure of hyperbole in order to emphasize how difficult it is spiritually for a rich man (because of his pride in his material wealth) to come to repentance and saving faith in God. To construe that passage literally would amount to blatant heresy, or at least a perversity that has nothing to do with orthodoxy. 


[NO  JESUS  MEANT  WHAT  HE  SAID,  IT  IS  SO  IMPOSSIBLE  FOR  A  RICH  MAN (WHO  HAS  HIS  GOD  AS  MONEY),  AND  IS  NOT  WILLING  IF  ASKED  BY  THE  LORD,  TO  PUT  IT  ALL  TO  ONE  SIDE  AND  FOLLOW  HIM;  WOULD  BE  LIKE  TRYING  TO  PUT  A  CAMEL  THROUGH  THE  EYE  OF  A  NEEDLE—— IMPOSSIBLE.  NO  FANCY  INTERPRETATION  NEEDED  -  Keith Hunt]


Or again, when Jesus said to the multitude that challenged Him to work some miracle, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19), they grievously erred when they interpreted His remarks literally. John 2:21 goes on to explain that Jesus did not mean this prediction literally but spiritually: "But He was speaking about the temple of His body. Therefore when He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He said this, and they believed the Scripture." In this case, then, literal interpretation was dead wrong because that was not what Jesus meant by the language He used; He was actually referring to the far greater miracle of His bodily resurrection.


[NO,  IT  WAS  LITERAL,  ONLY  HE  WAS  REFEREEING  TO  HIS  BODY  NOT  THE  TEMPLE  IN   JERUSALEM.  IT  WAS  LITERAL  THEN,  YOU  JUST  HAD  TO  KNOW  WHAT  LITERAL  JESUS  WAS  TAKING  ABOUT  -  Keith Hunt]

 

It thus becomes clear in this present case, as we study the text of Genesis 1, that we must not short-circuit our responsibility of careful exegesis in order to ascertain as clearly as possible what the divine author meant by the language His inspired prophet (in this case probably Moses) was guided to employ. Is the true purpose of Genesis 1 to teach that all creation began just six twenty-four-hour days before Adam was "born"? 


[REMEMBER  NOW  THESE  AUTHORS  HAVE  IN  MIND  THE  CREATION  OF  THE  WHOLE  UNIVERSE  IN  6  DAYS  INCLUDING  MAN.  HENCE  THEY  JUST  CANNOT  THINK  GENESIS  1  IS  LITERAL  IN  APPLYING  IT  TO  THE  WHOLE  UNIVERSE,  WHEN  “SCIENCE”  SHOWS  THE  UNIVERSE  IS  MILLIONS/BILLIONS  OF  YEARS  OLD  -  Keith Hunt]


Or is this just a mistaken inference that overlooks other biblical data having a direct bearing on this passage? 


[OH  THERE  IS  OTHER  BIBLICAL  DATA  ALRIGHT,  THAT  SHOWS  THE  EARTH  WAS  NOT  CREATED  IN  CHOAS  AND  WATER  COVERING  THE  WHOLE  PLANET;  THAT  HAPPENING  CAME  ALONG  AFTER  A  PERIOD  OF  TIME  THAT  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD  -  Keith Hunt]


To answer this question we must take careful note of what is said in Genesis 1:27 concerning the creation of man as the closing act of the sixth creative day. There it is stated that on that sixth day (apparently toward the end of the day, after all the animals had been fashioned and placed on the earth—therefore not long before sundown at the end of that same day), "God created man in His own image; He created them male and female." This can only mean that Eve was created in the closing hour of Day Six, along with Adam.


[YES  INDEED  IT  DOES  MEAN  THAT….AND  ON  THE  6TH  LITERAL  DAY  -  Keith Hunt]


As we turn to Genesis 2, however, we find that a considerable interval of time must have intervened between the creation of Adam and the creation of Eve. In 2:15 we are told that Yahweh Elohim (i.e., the Lord God) put Adam in the Garden of Eden as the ideal environment for his development, and there he was to cultivate and keep the enormous park, with all its goodly trees, abundant fruit crop, and four mighty rivers that flowed from Eden to other regions of the Near East. In 2:18 we read, "Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.'" This statement clearly implies that Adam had been diligently occupied in his responsible task of pruning, harvesting fruit, and keeping the ground free of brush and undergrowth for a long enough period to lose his initial excitement and sense of thrill at this wonderful occupation in the beautiful paradise of Eden. He had begun to feel a certain lonesomeness and inward dissatisfaction.


[THIS  INDICATES  NO  SUCH  THING!  THERE  IS  NO  INDICATION  THERE  WAS  “MUCH  TIME”  BEFORE  EVE  WAS  CREATED.  GOD  TOLD  HIM  WHAT  HIS  RESPONSIBILITIES  IN  THE  GARDEN  WERE;  HE  WAS  TO  NAME  THE  ANIMALS  THAT  WERE  THERE,  AS  HE  LOOKED  AT  THEM;  AND  HE  SAW  NOTHING  LIKE  HIMSELF,  TO  PARTNER  WITH  OR  CONVERSE  WITH,  ANOTHER  SOMEBODY  LIKE  HIMSELF.  AS  A  CHILD  OF  7  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  SCHOOL,  ON  THAT  FIRST  DAY,  WE  WERE  GIVEN  A  BIB LE  AND  TOLD  TO  OPEN  IT  TO  GENESIS  1.  THE  TEACHER  READ  GENESIS  1  AND  2  UP  TO  THE  CREATING  OF  EVE.  WOW  IT  WAS  EASY  TO  UNDERSTAND.  ON  THE  6TH  DAY  AFTER  CREATING  MAN,  AND  HE  COULD  FIND  NO  ONE  ELSE  LIKE  HIMSELF,  AS  HE  SAW  THE  ANIMALS,  GOD  DELIBERATELY  DOING  THIS  THAT  WAY,  SO  HE  COULD  TELL  HIM  HE  WOULD  MAKE  SOMEONE  TO  COMPLETE  HIM;  GOD  THEN  TOOK  A  RIB  FROM  ADAM [WELL  A  PART  OF  HIM]  AND  FROM  IT  GOD  MADE  WOMAN— EVE.  IT  WAS  AS  SIMPLE  AS  THAT  TO  ME  AT  AGE  7.  NO  FANCY  THEOLOGY  NEEDED,  JUST  VERY  SIMPLE  TO  UNDERSTAND  -  Keith Hunt]


In order to compensate for this lonesomeness, God then gave Adam a major assignment in natural history. He was to classify every species of animal and bird found in the preserve. With its five mighty rivers and broad expanse, the garden must have had hundreds of species of mammal, reptile, insect, and bird, to say nothing of the flying insects that also are indicated by the basic Hebrew term ‘op ("bird") (2:19). It took the Swedish scientist Linnaeus several decades to classify all the species known to European scientists in the eighteenth century. Doubtless there were considerably more by that time than in Adam's day; and, of course, the range of fauna in Eden may have been more limited than those available to Linnaeus. But at the same time it must have taken a good deal of study for Adam to examine each specimen and decide on an appropriate name for it, especially in view of the fact that he had absolutely no human tradition behind him, so far as nomenclature was concerned. It must have required some years, or, at the very least, a considerable number of months for him to complete this comprehensive inventory of all the birds, beasts, and insects that populated the Garden of Eden.


[AGAIN  READING  INTO  THINGS  NOT  THERE.  DID  ALL  THE  BIRDS  WE  HAVE  TODAY,  AT  FIRST  LIVED  IN  EDEN?  DID  ALL  THE  SEA  CREATURES  FIRST  LIVE  IN  EDEN  AND  ADAM  HAD  TO  NAME  THEM?  DID  ALL  THE  INSECTS  IN  THE  WORLD  TODAY  AT  FIRST  LIVE  IN  EDEN?  DID  ALL  THE  ANIMALS  OF  THE  WORLD  TODAY  FIRST  LIVE  IN  EDEN  FOR  ADAM  TO  NAME?  DID  THE  AUSTRALIAN  KANGAROO  AND  PLATYPUS  FIRST  LIVE  IN  EDEN?  DID  THE  KOALA  BEAR  FIRST  LIVE  IN  EDEN?  DID  THE  PANDA  BEAR  FIRST  LIVE  IN  EDEN?  GOD  HAS  NEVER  SAID  ANYWHERE  IN  HIS  WORD  THAT  ALL  CREATURES  OF  THE  SKY,  SEA  AND  LAND,  FIRST  LIVED  IN  EDEN  SO  ADAM  COULD  NAME  THEM—— ANYONE  THINKING  IT  WAS  SO,  NEEDS  TO  GET  REAL  OR  SEE  A  PSYCHIATRIST.  ADAM  NAMED  THE  CREATURES  GOD  PUT  IN  EDEN,  IT  DOES  NOT  SAY  GOD  PUT  ALL  AIR, SEA, AND LAND  CREATURES  WE  HAVE  TODAY  ALL  OVER  THE  WORLD,  FIRST  IN  THE  GADEN  OF  EDEN  FOR  ADAM  TO  NAME  -  Keith Hunt]

 

Finally, after this assignment with all its absorbing interest had been completed, Adam felt a renewed sense of emptiness. Genesis 2:20 ends with the words "but for Adam no suitable helper was found." After this long and unsatisfying experience as a lonely bachelor, God saw that Adam was emotionally prepared for a wife—a "suitable helper." God, therefore, subjected him to a deep sleep, removed from his body the bone that was closest to his heart, and from that physical core of man fashioned the first woman. Finally God presented woman to Adam in all her fresh, unspoiled beauty, and Adam was ecstatic with joy.


As we have compared Scripture with Scripture (Gen. 1:27 with 2:15-22), it has become very apparent that Genesis 1 was never intended to teach that the sixth creative day, when Adam and Eve were both created, lasted a mere twenty-four hours. In view of the long interval of time between these two, it would seem to border on sheer irrationality to insist that all of Adam's experiences in Genesis 2:15-22 could have been crowded into the last hour or two of a literal twenty-four-hour day. 


[OH  YES  IT  DOES  TEACH  VERY  CLEARLY  THAT  THERE  WAS  6  LITERAL  DAYS  OF  GOD  WORKING  HIS  WORK  ON  THIS  EARTH;  THAT  ADAM  WAS  CREATED  SOMEWHAT  ON  THE  6TH  DAY,  TOLD  TO  MAINTAIN  EDEN,  NAME  THE  CREATURES  CREATED  THERE  AND  IN  THAT  GARDEN,  AND  THEN  SEE  NOT  ONE  OF  THEM  WAS  FITTING  FOR  HIM  TO  SADDLE  UP  WITH.  HENCE  THE  CREATION  OF  EVE.  NOTHING  TO  IT,  JUST  THAT  SIMPLE  AND  ONLY  NEEDED  THE  LATTER  HOURS  OF  THE  DAY  TO  DO  IT,  BUT  THEN  WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD  WHAT  HOUR  OF  THE  6TH  DAY  ADAM  WAS  CREATED,  IT  IS  ONLY  GUESSING  TO  SAY  LATE  IN  THE  DAY,  IT  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  11  AM  OR  1  PM…..WE  ARE  NOT  TOLD  -  Keith Hunt]


The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the purpose of Genesis 1 is not to tell how fast God performed His work of creation (though, of course, some of His acts, such as the creation of light on the first day, must have been instantaneous). Rather, its true purpose was to reveal that the Lord God who had revealed Himself to the Hebrew race and entered into personal covenant relationship with them was indeed the only true God, the Creator of all things that are. This stood in direct opposition to the religious notions of the heathen around them, who assumed the emergence of a pantheon of gods in successive stages out of preexistent matter of unknown origin, actuated by forces for which there was no accounting.


[NO  GENESIS  1  IS  EXACTLY  TELLING  US  IT  WAS  6  LITERAL  DAYS  THAT  GOD  WORKED  ON  AN  EARTH  COVERED  WITH  WATER;  IT  IS  NOT  TELLING  US  ABOUT  THE  CREATING  OF  THE  UNIVERSE  OR  OF  THE  EARTH  ITSELF,  IN  ANY  DETAIL  AT  ALL,  WHICH  BOTH  COULD  BE  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS  OLD  -  Keith Hunt]


Genesis 1 is a sublime manifesto, totally rejecting all the cosmogonies of the pagan cultures of the ancient world as nothing but baseless superstition. The Lord God Almighty existed before all matter, and by His own word of command He brought the entire physical universe into existence, governing all the great forces of wind, rain, sun, and sea according to His sovereign will. This stood in stark contrast to the clashing, quarreling, capricious little deities and godlets spawned by the corrupt imagination of the heathen. The message and purpose of Genesis 1 is the revelation of the one true God who created all things out of nothing and ever keeps the universe under His sovereign control.


[GENESIS 1  IS  TELLING  US  GOD  DID  CREATING;  HE  IS  SUPREME  IN  THE  UNIVERSE,  HE  WORKED  ON  THIS  EARTH  COVERED  WITH  WATER  FOR  6  LITERAL  DAYS  AND  DID  WHAT  IS  WRITTEN  THERE——  JUST  THAT  SIMPLE,  SO  SIMPLE  A  CHILD  CAN  UNDERSTAND.  I  DID  WHEN  I  FIRST  READ  IT (OR  HAD  IT  READ  TO  US  BY  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND  TEACHER),  WHEN  I  WAS  7  YEARS  OLD  -  Keith Hunt]


The second major aspect of Genesis 1 is the revelation that God brought forth His creation in an orderly and systematic manner. There were six major stages in this work of formation, and these stages are represented by successive days of a week. In this connection it is important to observe that none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text; the translations "the first day," "the second day," etc., are in error. The Hebrew says, "And the evening took place, and the morning took place, day one" (1:5). Hebrew expresses "the first day" by hayyom hari'son, but this text says simply yom 'ehad ("day one"). Again, in v.8 we read not hayyom hasseni ("the second day") but yom seni ("a second day"). In Hebrew prose of this genre, the definite article was generally used where the noun was intended to be definite; only in poetic style could it be omitted. The same is true with the rest of the six days; they all lack the definite article. Thus they are well adapted to a sequential pattern, rather than to strictly delimited units of time.


[NOTICE  THE  AUTHORS  SAYS  “WAS  GENERALLY  USED”—— IF  THERE  IS  ONE  THING  IN  STUDYING  THE  BIBLE,  YOU  NEED  TO  GET  MARKED  INTO  YOUR  BRAIN  IT  IS,  THER E  ARE  ALWAYS  EXCEPTIONS  TO  A  GENERAL  RULE;  SAME  IN  ENGLISH,  THERE  ARE  ALWAYS  IN  ALL  AREAS  OF  LIFE  EXCEPTIONS  TO  THE  RULE.  SO  IF  THE  KJV  TRANSLATORS  HAD  WRITTEN,  “EVENING  AND  MORNING,  FIRST  DAY”  OR  “DARK  AND  LIGHT,  FIRST  DAY.”  IF  THEY  HAD  TRANSLATED  THE  HEBREW  AS  “EVENING  AND  MORNING,  SECOND  DAY”  OR  “DARK  AND  LIGHT,  SECOND  DAY”  I  AS  A  KID  OF  7  WOULD  STILL  HAVE  TAKING  IT  TO  BE  6  AND  7  LITERAL  DAYS.  IT  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  EASY  FOR  MOSES  (THE  WRITER)  TO  HAVE  SAID  “AGES”  OR  “OVER  A  LONG  PERIOD  OF  TIME  GOD  MADE….”


THE  COMPLETE  JEWISH  BIBLE  BY  DAVID  H.  STERN  TRANSLATES  THE  HEBREW…. “SO  THERE  WAS  EVENING,  AND  THERE  WAS  MORNING,  ONE  DAY…… SO  THERE  WAS  EVENING,  AND  THERE  WAS  MORNING,  A  SECOND  DAY….ETC.”  IF  I  HAD  READ  THIS  AT  AGE  7  IT  STILL  WOULD  HAVE  BEEN  7  LITERAL  DAYS  TO  ME.  JESUS  SAID,  “I  THANK  YOU  FATHER  THAT  YOU  HAVE  HID  THESE  THINGS  FROM  THE  WISE  AND PRUDENT,  AND  HAVE  REVEALED  THEM  UNTO  BABES”  “IF  YOU  DO  NOT  BECOME  AS  A  LITTLE  CHILD  YOU  SHALL  NOT  ENTER  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN.”  PRETTY  PLAIN  TO ME  -  Keith  Hunt]


Genesis 1:2-5 thus sets forth the first stage of creation: the formation of light. This must have meant primarily the light of the sun and the other heavenly bodies. Sunlight is a necessary precondition to the development of plant life and animal life, generally speaking (though there are some subterranean forms of life that manage to do without it).


Genesis 1:6-8 presents the second stage: the formation of an "expanse" (raqia') that separated between moisture in suspension in the sky and moisture condensed enough to remain on the earth's surface. The term raqia' does not mean a beaten-out metal canopy, as some writers have alleged—no ancient culture ever taught such a notion in its concept of the sky—but simply means "a stretched-out expanse." This is quite evident from Isaiah 42:5, where the cognate verb raqa' is used: "Thus says the God Yahweh, the Creator of the heavens, and the one who stretched them out [from the verb natah, 'to extend' curtains or tent cords], the one who extended [roqa'] the earth and that which it produces [the noun sesa'im refers always to plants and animals]." Obviously raqa' could not here mean "beat out," "stamp out" (though it is often used that way in connection with metal working); the parallelism with natah (noted above) proves that here it has the force of extend or expand. Therefore, the noun raqia' can mean only "expanse," without any connotation of a hard metal plate.


Genesis 1:9-13 relates the third stage in God's creative work, the receding of the waters of the oceans, seas, and lakes to a lower altitude than the masses of land that emerged above them and thus were allowed to become dry. Doubtless the gradual cooling of the planet Earth led to the condensation of water necessary to bring about this result; seismic pressures producing mountains and hills doubtless contributed further to this separation between land and sea. Once this dry land (hayyabbasah) appeared, it became possible for plant life and trees to spring up on the earth's surface, aided by photosynthesis from the still beclouded sky.


[NOTICE  THE  AUTHORS  GIVE  AGES  OF  TIME  FOR  ALL  THIS  TO  HAPPEN;  ONLY  WAY  THEY  CAN  FIGURE  IT  MUST  BE  TO  FIT  WITH  GEOLOGY  OF  MILLIONS  OR  BILLIONS  OF  YEARS  TO  FORM  THE  EARTH  SLOWLY  OVER  MUCH  TIME.  THEY  CANNOT  SEE  THE  EARTH  ALREADY  EXISTED  FOR  WHO  KNOWS  HOW  LONG  AND  THEN  A  CATASTROPHE  HAPPENING  TO  COVER  THE  EARTH  WITH  WATER,  THEN  GOD  DOING  WHAT  HE  DID  IN  6  LITERAL  DASYS,  WHEN  HE  DECIDED  TO  DO  IT  -  Keith Hunt]


Genesis 1:14-19 reveals that in the fourth creative stage God parted the cloud cover enough for direct sunlight to fall on the earth and for accurate observation of the movements of the sun, moon, and stars to take place. Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars created on Day One as the source of light had been placed in their appointed places by God with a view to their eventually functioning as indicators of time ("signs, seasons, days, years") to terrestrial observers. The Hebrew verb wayya'as in v. 16 should better be rendered "Now [God] had made the two great luminaries, etc.," rather than as simple past tense, "[God] made." (Hebrew has no special form for the pluperfect tense but uses the perfect tense, or the conversive imperfect as here, to express either the English past or the English pluperfect, depending on the context.)


[YES  AS  FENTON  TRANSLATES  THE  HEBREW  “HAD  MADE”  -  FENTON  STUDIED  HEBREW  AND  GREEK  FOR  50  YEARS  BEFORE  GIVING  HIS  TRANSLATION  OF  THE  BIBLE.  THE  SUN  AND  MOON  WERE  ALREADY  THERE,  COULD  HAVE  BEEN  FOR  THOUSANDS,  MILLIONS,  OR  BILLIONS  OF  YEARS;  THEN  GOD  MOVED  THINGS  AWAY  SO  THEY  COULD  BE  SEEN  AND  USED  FOR  MONTHS,  YEARS,  SEASONS,  AS  MANY  PEOPLE  HAVE  USED  THEM  FOR  IN  HUMAN  HISTORY  -  Keith Hunt]


Genesis 1:20-23 relates that on the fifth creative day God fully developed marine life, freshwater life, and introduced flying creatures (whether insects, lizards, or winged birds). It is interesting to observe that the fossil-bearing strata of the Paleozoic era contain the first evidence of invertebrate animal life with startling suddenness in the Cambrian period. There is no indication in the pre-Cambrian strata of how the five thousand species of marine and terrestrial animal life of the Paleozoic era may have developed, for there is no record of them whatever prior to the Cambrian levels (cf. D. Dewar, "The Earliest Known Animals," Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 80 [1948]: 22-29).


[THERE  WAS  BEFORE  GENESIS  1:2  A  WORLD  OR  AGE (LENGTH  NOT  TOLD - MAYBE  MILLIONS  OF  YEARS)  OF  THE  DINOSAUR  WORLD,  THEN  IN  HUGE  VIOLENCE  IT  CAME  TO  A  CRASHING  STOP  AND  BURIAL,  SOME  VERY  LOW  DOWN,  SOME  NEAR  THE  TOP  OF  THE  WORLD  CREATED  BY  GOD  IN  GENESIS  1;  THE  FAMOUS  DRUMHELLER,  ALBERTA,  CANADA,  BEING  NEAR  THE  TOP  FOR  DINOSAUR  REMAINS  -  Keith Hunt]      


Genesis 1:24-26 records that in the sixth and final stage of the creative process, God brought forth all the land animals after their various species (leminah in v.24 and leminehu in v.25 mean "according to its kind," whether the antecedent was male or female in grammatical gender), culminating finally in the creation of man, as discussed more extensively above.


[YES  LAND  ANIMALS  ON  THE  6TH  LITERAL  DAY;  AND  WHY  SHOULD  THAT  SEEM  KINDA  STRANGE  TO  SOME  PEOPLE.  GOD  CAN  BRING  WHATEVER  HE  LIKES  INTO  BEING  IN  THE  BLINK  OF  AN  EYE.  WE  ONLY  HAVE  TO  LOOK  AT  THIS  UNIVERSE,  AS  WE  ARE  DOING  NOW  WITH  TELESCOPES  IN  OUTER  SPACE,  AND  WE  SEE  THE  MIGHTY  POWER  OF  THE  GODHEAD—— THE  HUMAN  MIND  CANNOT  GRASPE  IT  ALL…. The Milky Way is a barred spiral galaxy with a diameter between 100,000 and 180,000 light-years. The Milky Way is estimated to contain 100–400 billion stars. There are probably at least 100 billion planets in the Milky Way.  

THAT  IS  JUST  FOR  STARTERS  -  Keith Hunt]


In this connection, a comment is in order concerning the recurring formula at the end of each creative day: "And it was/became evening, and it became/was morning, a second day" (or whatever ordinal it might be). The reason for this closing statement seems to have been twofold. First, it was necessary to make clear whether the symbolic unit involved was a mere sunrise-to-sundown day, or whether it was a twenty-four-hour day. The term yom ("day") could mean either. In fact, the first time yom occurs is in v.5: "And He called the light day, and the darkness He called night." Therefore, it was necessary to show that each of the creative days was symbolized by a complete twenty-four-hour cycle, beginning at sunset of the previous day (according to our reckoning) and ending with the daylight portion, down to the setting of the sun, on the following day (as we would reckon it).


[SO  WHAT  IS  ALL  THAT  SUPPOSED  TO  PROVE?  -  Keith Hunt]


Second, the twenty-four-hour day serves as a better symbol than a mere daylight day in regard to the commencement and completion of one stage of creation before the next stage began. There were definite and distinct stages in God's creational procedure. If this be the true intention of the formula, then it serves as no real evidence for a literal twenty-four-hour-day concept on the part of the biblical author.


[BUT  IT  WAS  NOT  THE  TRUE  INTENTION  OF  MOSES  TO  TRY  AND  TELL  US  IT  WAS  “AGES”  HERE  AND  NOT  A  SINGLE  LITERAL  DAY.  MOSES  COULD  HAVE  EASILY  USED  HEBREW  AND  GIVEN  US  “AGES”  OR  “LONG  PERIOD  OF  TIME”  OR  “MUCH  TIME  GOING  BY”  -  THERE  ARE  HEBREW  WORDS  FOR  ALL  THOSE  ENGLISH  WORDS  -  Keith Hunt]


Some have argued that the reference in the Decalogue (commandment four) to God's resting on the seventh day as a basis for honoring the seventh day of each week strongly suggests the literal nature of "day" in Genesis 1. This is not at all compelling, however, in view of the fact that if there was to be any day of the week especially set aside from labor to center on the worship and service of the Lord, then it would have to be a twenty-four-hour day (Saturday) in any event. 


[YEP  YOU  GOT  IT—— SATURDAY  -  Keith Hunt]


As a matter of fact, Scripture does not at all teach that Yahweh rested only one twenty-four-hour day at the conclusion of His creative work. No closing formula occurs at the close of the seventh day, referred to in Genesis 2:2-3. 


[SO  WHAT  HAS  A  CLOSING  “FORMULA”  GOT  TO  DO  WITH  ANYTHING  GOD  WANTS  TO  SANCTIFY?  THE  HEBREW  AND  ENGLISH  IS  VERY  CLEAR;  GOD  IS  NOT  BOUND  BY  YOUR  SO-CALLED  “FORMULAR”—— HE’S  NOT  RESTRICTED  BY  HOW  YOU  SAY  HE  SHOULD  HAVE  WRITTEN  IT;  GOD  IS  GOD  NOT  YOU;  HE  CAN  INSPIRE  WHOEVER  TO  WRITE  IT  AS  HOW  GOD  WANTS  IT  WRITTEN.  AS  A  CHILD  OF  7  IT  WAS  PRETTY  SIMPLE  TO  ME,  AND  TIED  IN  EXACTLY  WITH  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  AS  GIVEN  IN  EXODUS  20  -  Keith Hunt]


And, in fact, the New Testament teaches (in Heb. 4:1-11) that that seventh day, that "Sabbath rest," in a very definite sense has continued on right into the church age. If so, it would be quite impossible to line up the seventh-day Sabbath with the Seventh Day that concluded God's original work of creation!


[NOT  AT  ALL  IMPOSSIBLE,  VERY  SIMPLE  TO  READ  THE  4TH  COMMANDMENT  IN  EXODUS  20  AND  SEE  HOW  IT  TIES  IN  WITH  GENESIS  2.  MY  OH  MY,  HOW  YOU  “PRUDENT”  AND  “WISE”  GUYS  GET  SO  FAR  OUT  WITH  YOUR  PhD  MINDS…. IT’S  LAUGHABLE  IF  NOT  SO  SERIOUS  A  MATTER.  AND  IF  YOU  WANT  TO  SEE  THE  TRUTH  OF  HEBREWS  4  GO  AND  READ  DR.  SAMUELE  BACCHIOCCHI’S  STUDY  “FROM  SABBATH  TO  SUNDAY”  UNDER  “SABBATH  AND  FEASTS  OF  GOD”  ON  THIS  WEB SITE  -  Keith Hunt]


One last observation concerning the word yom as used in Genesis 2:4. Unlike some of the modern versions, KJV correctly renders this verse "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Since the previous chapter has indicated that there were at least six days involved in creating the heavens and the earth, it is abundantly evident that yom in Genesis 2:4 cannot possibly be meant as a twenty-four-hour day—unless perchance the Scripture contradicts itself! (For a good discussion of this topic by a Christian professor of geology, see Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood and Theistic Evolution [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977]. Some details of his treatment are open to question, and he is not always precise in his terminology; but in the main his work furnishes a solid contribution to this area of debate.)


[NOTHING  STRANGE  HERE.  AS  I  READ  GENESIS 2: 4  AS  A  7  YEAR  OLD,  IT  WAS  CLEAR  TO  ME  THAT  THIS  WAS  A  WAY  OF  SAYING  WHAT  HAD  ALREADY  TAKEN  PLACE  IN  GENESIS  1  FROM  THE  VERY  START  OF  THE  GENERATIONS  OF  GOD  CREATING  THE  UNIVERSE   TO  HIS  CREATING  WHAT  HE  DID  ON  7  LITERAL  DAYS.  I  NEVER  IN  ALL  MY  FOLLOWING  YEARS  EVER  THOUGHT  THIS  GENESIS  2: 4  WAS  TEACHING  “AGES”  FOR  THE  6  DAYS;  IT  NEVER  CROSSED  MY  MIND  TO  THINK  OF  AGES  OR  MASSIVE  LONG  PERIODS  OF  TIME  FOR  EACH  “DAY”——  HOW  WOULD  MANY  FLOWERS  AND  THE  LIKE  GET  POLLINATED  WITH  NO  CREATURES  AROUND  FOR  HUNDREDS  OR  THOUSANDS  OR  TENS  OF  THOUSANDS (LET  ALONE  MILLIONS)  OF  YEARS?


DAVIS  A.  YOUNG’S  WRITINGS  HAVE  BEEN  ANSWERED  BY  OTHER   PhD  FELLOWS  THAT  UNDERSTAND  THE  DAYS  OF  GENESIS 1  AND  2  AS  LITERAL  24  HOUR  DAYS. 


YOUR  IDEAS  OF  COURSE  MAKE  IT  EASY  FOR  YOU  TO  THROW  OUT  THE  OBSERVANCE  OF  THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH,  AND  MANGLE  THE  TEN  COMMANDMENTS,  IN  SOME  BIZZAR  THEOLOGY.  THEN  IT  MAKES  IT  EASIER  FOR  YOU  TO  UPHOLD  AND  TEACH  THE  OBSERVANCE  OF  WHAT  YOU  SAY  IS  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  HOLY  SABBATH  DAY— THE  FIRST  DAY  OF  THE  WEEK— SUNDAY  OBSERVANCE.  WHAT  PEOPLE  LIKE  YOU  WILL  DO  TO  MAKE  THE  COMMANDMENTS  OF  GOD  OF  NONE  AFFECT  (SEE  MARK  7).


JESUS  SAID  THE  SABBATH  WAS  MADE  FOR  MAN;  YES  IT  WAS  MADE  ON  THE  7TH  LITERAL  DAY  OF  GENESIS  2.  JESUS  IT  IS  WRITTEN  OBSERVED  THE  WEEKLY  SABBATH  AS  HIS  CUSTOM  WAS,  YES  WITH  THE  JEWS  OF  HIS  TIME— THE  7TH  DAY  SABBATH,  WHICH  HAS  NEVER  BEEN  LOST,  THE  JEWS  HAVE  KEPT  IT  IN  TACT  SINCE  MOSES’  TIME.  MAKES  ME  SO  RIGHTEOUSLY  ANGRY  AT  PEOPLE  LIKE  YOURSELVES.  ONE  DAY  YOU  WILL  KNOW  IN  NO  UNCERTAIN  WAY,  THE  ERRORS  OF  YOUR  APOSTASY  -  Keith Hunt]


…………………………