Genesis One

by

Wayne McDaniel

 Wayne McDaniel, 2001

wmcdaniel@sunflower.com

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the
author.
 Genesis One

The Book of Genesis presents an account of creation which for many poses
problematic issues in light of scientific discoveries. These issues can be categorized
into three areas: time span (age and length of “days”), order of creation and means
(evolution vs. Divine design). The purpose of this paper is not to resolve all of these
issues, but rather to explore the Genesis text to uncover what it actually is or is not
saying.

Within the creationist camp, there is disagreement between a literal interpretation of 24

hour days and epoch “days.” Both interpretations have textual and scientific problems.

One major problem is that the sun is made in day four. This is after day and night and
plant life is created. This specific problem is generally resolved by creationists in one of
two ways. The first is that God himself provided the light for the first three days. The
second is that the sun was actually created on day one as part of the “heavens” God
created on day one, but due to water vapor in the atmosphere, the sun and other
celestial bodies did not become visible until the fourth day when the were “made”
(visible). Both of these are reasonable interpretations, but I think both are attempts to
stretch the text beyond its original meaning and intent to reconcile to logic.

Before looking at the text, while ancient man lacked our scientific understanding, he
had a sophisticated understanding of astronomy. This is evidenced by the intricate
calendars, astrological readings, temple and building design. Ancient man was also not
ignorant of logic. He knew that light came from the sun and so to place the creation of
the sun after the creation of day and night would make no more sense to him than it
does to us. Therefore, we need to learn to view the text of Genesis One as it would
have been understood by Moses.

Let’s look at the text, specifically the first day. “In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the
surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God
said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he
separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness he
called “night.” And there was a evening, and there was morning—the first day.”

I am going to apply critical analysis to the scriptures, not for the purpose of destroying
them, but rather that we might see the fallacies in how they are commonly interpreted.
Truth is truth, whether scientific or religious and must be in harmony with each other.

Off the bat, a question is raised. Was the first sentence part of day one, a period of
time prior to day one or a summary of the entire six day period? It could reasonably
interpreted any of those ways. I am not going to suggest at this time how to interpret
this first line, except to point out that multiple, reasonable interpretations are possible.
As you will see later, I do not believe it is even relevant to what time period verse one
refers.

On the first day, God created light. Let us pause for a moment to contemplate the
ramifications of this statement. From what did the light emanate? There are only two
reasonable choices—Himself or celestial bodies. Given the context, that this is the
story of the creation of the universe, it would seem natural that the source of the
created light would be from created objects, such as a stars, which were created either
on day one when He created the heavens and the earth or day four when he created
the sun, moon and stars.

In verse four, God separated the light from darkness and called the light “day” and the
darkness “night.” The first problem is that one does not separate light from darkness as
one separates water from oil. Darkness is simply the absence of light. The only way it
can be separated is by blockage. The point is, this is not a scientific explanation of
what happened. It is more of a poetic description of light and darkness. The real
interesting statement, though, is that light is called “day” and darkness “night.” We
know that light and darkness are not equivalent to day and night. However, in this
context, they are equated—not as a scientific statement of fact, but as it might be told
in a story.

For the 24 hour creation literalist, this immediately poses a problem. If the presence or
existence of light (without the sun created on day four) is day, how long is that day?
Furthermore, since the Hebrew day began at dusk, when did the day begin? It could
not have started with the creation of light, because that would not have been evening.
In addition, from where on earth or the universe are you measuring this day? Light was
created, which represents “day” and is unending—when did the day end?

It is actually after the creation of the heavens and earth and light that Genesis says
“there was evening, and there was morning, the first day.” Therefore, it can be
reasonably argued that God created these things before the first day. The same format
follows with the rest of creation. Genesis says God said this or that and then there was
evening and morning, the x day. In other words, it could be read that creation actually
happened between the days. (This does not solve the order problem, though.)

Continuing with the theme of day and night, according to a literal reading of Genesis,
there was nothing to separate day from night until the fourth day. Referring to day four,
Genesis 1:14 says, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day
from night.” If there was nothing to separate day from night before this time, then how
were there evenings and mornings before this time? In fact, the same verse (14) says
they are to “mark days.” How could days have been marked before this time?

Another problem with the literal day theory is the physical consequences of much of
creation. For example, up until day three, water covered the earth. On day three,
water is drained off land to create dry land. This raising of the land would have created
enormous tsunamis that would have wrecked havoc on the earth for weeks, if not
months. Yet, on the same day, plants were growing and within three more days, man
and animals occupied the land. Of course, the literalist will argue that since God is
creating things, he could have contained the waters to prevent the natural results of the
physical laws he created.

According to Genesis One, on the sixth day, God created man and woman. However,
in Genesis Two, the creation of man is related in more detail. In Genesis Two, we are
told that before woman was created, God brought all the animals and birds to Adam to
see what he would name them. Then he made Eve. We know that there were many
more species of animals on the earth in times past than are alive today. It would have
been physically impossible for a person to see and name every kind of animal and bird
in a single day. The text does not even hint that this was anything other than a leisurely
exploratory venture. If creation occurred in literal 24 hour days, then either Adam
accomplished a supernatural level of work or Genesis Two is in conflict with Genesis
One.

In addition, Genesis Two, in restating part of the account of creation makes some
interesting statements. Genesis 2:4 states, “This is the account of the heavens and
earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven
(New American Standard).” (italics added for emphasis). Moses then goes on to
describe the creation of man in more detail. What is of interest is that in this context,
“the day” clearly refers to more than one day, rather a period of time—so much so, that
the New International Version does not even use the word “day,” but when. Yet, the
Hebrew word for day, “yom,” is used in Genesis 2:4 and is the same word used
throughout Genesis One.

Furthermore, Genesis Two goes on to say that “no shrub of the field was yet in the
earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted” (v. 5), then “God formed man” (v. 7),
then “God planted a garden” (v.8), and “out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow
every tree that is pleasing…” (v.9). Finally, “out of the ground the Lord God formed
every beast of the field and every bird of the sky” (v. 19). The events of creation in
Genesis Two are in a dramatically different order than in Genesis One. This apparent
contradiction is usually glossed over by literal interpretations of Genesis One and Two.
When it is addressed, Genesis Two is assumed not to be an orderly account of creation
(because it is not defined by days), even though it is written in an orderly fashion.
[Please note that most translations use present tense forms of the verbs used in
Genesis Two (as quoted above from the New American Standard version), however,
the New International version uses past tense verb forms. Since I am not a Hebrew
scholar, and can only rely upon the translations, I cannot state with certainty which is
the correct form to use. Since the efficacy of the argument in this paragraph is
dependent upon verb tense, further research is necessary to determine the proper
tense and hence order.]

Finally, on the seventh day, God rested. There is no indication that this day was any
longer or shorter than any other day. However, it is interesting to note that the seventh
day is not ended by the phase “and there was evening and morning.” Hebrews Four
implies that the seventh day lasts even until now. Therefore, there was an
understanding that the seventh day was not limited to 24 hours, and by implication,
neither were any of the prior days.

God is independent of time and does not measure it in the same way we do. II Peter
3:8 says, “With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like
a day.” Therefore, a literal 24 hour reading of Genesis One may be trying to fit God into
a box. In fact, at the risk of being presumptuous, it seems rather absurd that God
would limit his creative activity to six 24 hour segments of time. It seems more
reasonable that he defined his creative activities to man in six significant actions,
followed by a time of rest. Defined this way in part, to teach man to work for six days
and rest for one.

The purpose of the above analysis is to demonstrate that there are significant
inconsistencies and problems if Genesis One is interpreted completely literally. The
best solution to the entire problem is to read the text as it was originally intended, and
not attempt to stretch the text to fit a particular scientific viewpoint.

I am certainly not the first to propose the following interpretation of Genesis One, and I
want to make it clear in advance that I am not attempting to mythologize the story as
some more liberal critics would. Neither am I suggesting that Genesis be reinterpreted
as more is learned. Rather, that it be received with the message for which it was
originally intended, that “in the beginning, God created.”

When information is related, it may be communicated in a number of ways: as

scientific facts, as a historical record, in the form of poetry, as an allegory or parable. In
addition, information may be presented chronologically, by order of importance from
any number of perspectives, randomly or according to some other criteria depending
upon the nature of the material.

Perhaps creationists have been miss-applying sound rules of Biblical interpretation to

the Genesis text. Perhaps it never was intended to serve as a chronological literal
historic record of events, but rather a poetic presentation of the story of creation. I
propose that the phrase which is repeated at the end of each major event, “and there
was an evening and a morning, the x day,” was a poetic literary technique used to show
the end of a thought. This might be analogous to the use of the word “Selah” in the
Psalms, “Amen” in prayers, the congregational response in a liturgy or a chorus in a
song. It is not intended to delineate chronological time periods, but rather aspects of
creation.

Try reading Genesis One skipping the evening and morning phrases. In so doing, you
will note that no longer must it be understood as either chronological or of certain
length. In fact, the story reads much easier. I think, for those not poetically inclined
and with a Western mind, this may bring the creation story closer to how it was
understood by the ancient Hebrews.

If unconvinced of its poetic basis, let me present another view.

In I Corinthians 13, Paul says, “We see as through a glass dimly” now. That is, we do
not have complete understanding. We are missing information and the dark glass
distorts our view. In fact, God seems content with hiding information and even with our
holding miss-conceptions. When God appeared to Job, he did not answer his
questions. He did not fully explain to us the Trinity, nor even give us sufficient insight
into his second coming for us to be in agreement. He is content for us to hold various
views, all of which may be in error. Just as God has enshrouded the end of time in
mystery, he has enshrouded the beginning of time in mystery.

God calls Pharaoh and the Babylonians his servants. Yet, in reality their hearts were in
no way inclined towards God. They were evil and treacherous. But, he calls these evil
men his servants because He used them to accomplish His will. The error in them did
not negate their usefulness towards God.

Perhaps in a like manner, God has allowed “error” to be included in the creation story.
The story is included in the Bible, not as a chronological historically accurate record of
events, but to demonstrate certain important truths. One of those truths is to recognize
that God is the source of all and that He alone is wholly true.
The Pharisees made the mistake of believing that the scriptures bring eternal life.
Jesus pointed out that life was not in the scriptures, but in Him. We know early history
only in part. Man became so darkened by sin that God destroyed the world through a
flood and much of man’s knowledge and history was lost as a result. God has left us
with just enough to point towards Him. He has left the record enshrouded with
questions so that we have to come to him in faith, acknowledging our own lack of
understanding. We come to Him also mourning the fact that we are of a sinful race and
did not take care to record and remember the glorious creation. What we are left with
are the vague recollections of man, as it was passed down over may generations.

Ecclesiastes and Psalms frequently present an ungodly viewpoint, yet they are
recorded because they present the human condition and therefore useful in
understanding the great Grace of God. All of the Bible was written by human beings
and, as such, is colored with human perspectives. The human perspective does not
diminish the divine, but rather augments its value. How awesome that God would
choose to communicate to us through imperfect clay vessels! Therefore, I do not
believe that viewing the creation story as a mixture of inaccurate human recollection
and divine inspiration is in conflict. Lack of historic accuracy does not negate its
usefulness or purpose towards God any more than the parables of Jesus do. I am not
saying that it is an inaccurate representation of events, but rather that it is not
necessary for the story to be accurate in all details to be considered part of the inspired
Word of God.

In summary, there are serious problems in a literal reading of Genesis One. Problems
which remain whether applying 24 hour interpretation or epoch interpretation.
Problems remain because Genesis One was not written, nor ever was intended to be
understood as a complete and fully ordered account of creation. Personally, I an
inclined to believe it is an inspired poetic rendition of man’s best recollection of what
happened.

Genesis One was written with these purposes in mind:

• Demonstrating that God created everything

• Everything He created is good
• That there was an organization to creation
• That there was a purpose to His creation
• That man is the crowning glory of His creation
• That man is created in God’s image
• That there is a time to work and a time to rest.

Understanding Genesis One in this way removes the “conflict” with science, logic and
with its own internal inconsistencies and eliminates the need to stretch the text to
accommodate science as we understand it.

Evolution vs. Divine Design

I did not address this issue in the main body of the paper because its inclusion would
interrupt the flow of thought. I am not going to address it extensively herein either.
Volumes have been published on this subject. My primary purpose in addressing the
issue is not to argue the scientific evidence one way or the other, but rather see what
the text of Genesis says and whether or not the text supports evolution or creation or
both.

Genesis 1:11-12 says, “Let the earth sprout vegetation….and the earth brought forth
vegetation.” Genesis 2:9 says, “God caused to grow every tree.” These verses say
nothing of how God created them or caused them to grow or develop, leaving the door
open for either an evolutionary or specific creative activity. However, the same verses
in Genesis One, say they bore fruit and seed “after their kind.” This would indicate a
continuation of the same species or genre, though it does not exclude extensive
evolutionary development.

As for animal life, Genesis 1:20 says, “let the waters teem with swarms of living
creatures, and let birds fly above.” 1:24 says, “let the earth bring forth living creatures.”
Again, no indication of how these creatures came into being, except by God’s
declaration for it to be. However, in reference to creation of animal life, Genesis also
says that God “created…every living creature that moves (v.21),” and “made the beasts
(v. 24)” and “formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky (2:19).” In
addition, it repeatedly says that the animals were to multiply “after their kind.” Overall,
the text would tend to favor specific creation over evolution. Again, it does not exclude
evolution as the means of creation, though evolution by random mutation would seem
to be in conflict with this record.

Finally, Genesis One and Two (and Five) are very specific regarding the creation of
man. It says that God created man and in God’s own image He created him (1:26-27).
Also, that God formed man of dust and breathed life into him (2:7). No objective
reading of Genesis could conclude that the text indicates an evolutionary development
of man.

Therefore, Genesis may allow for a limited degree of evolution, particularly within the
plant kingdom. However, it is stretching the text to apply it to the animal kingdom, and
special creation is clearly supported as it pertains to mankind.

However, if the Genesis account of creation is a poetic representation of mans best,

but clouded recollection of creation, as I have proposed, then how reliable is it on this
aspect of creation? Here is where faith takes over. Genesis One and Two are included
as divinely inspired scriptures because they contain certain elements of truth which are
foundational to faith. Special creation is one of those elements which is clearly
articulated in both the poetry and story.

If, on the other hand, faith is insufficient to accept this point, then believe Darwinism.
As stated early in this paper, scientific and religious truth must be in harmony with each
other. An objective understanding of the evidence will support that which is true.

Wayne McDaniel
May, 2001