the genesis account of creation

USA:RBC MinistriesPO Box 2222Grand Rapids, MI49501-2222

Write to us at:

CANADA:Radio Bible Class(Canada)Box 1622Windsor, ONN9A 6Z7

RBC Web site:www.rbc.org

Many people, making even the smallest of donations, enable RBC Ministries to reach others with the life-changing wisdom of the Bible. We are not funded or endowed by any group or denomination.

Q1112

THE GENESISACCOUNT OFCREATIONDefusing TheControversy

DDo fossils provide evidencethat the earth has been

around for millions ofyears? Could a catastrophic floodhave thrown off the conclusions ofscientists? Where do the remainsof long-extinct creatures fit in thebiblical account of creation?

People who are alike in their desire to find the intendedmeaning of the first chapters ofGenesis have come up withdifferent answers to thesequestions. The resultingcontroversy has polarized thosewho are equally sincere in theirdesire to honestly interpret theBible and scientific data.

This booklet by Dean Ohlmanis offered with the prayer that itwill help us to respect one anotherin our differences, while affirmingtogether that the Genesis accountof creation is true.

Martin R. De Haan IIManaging Editor: David Sper Cover Photo: iStockphotoUnless otherwise indicated, Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version.Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission.All rights reserved.© 2008 RBC Ministries, Grand Rapids, Michigan Printed in USA

CONTENTS

Fossils And The Search For Truth . . . . . . . 2

God’s Two Books:Nature And The Bible. . . 4

What Does It Mean To Say,“The GenesisAccount Is True”? . . . . . . 8

Some Key Implications Of The Genesis Account. . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

So Why The Controversy? . . . . . . . . 20

Questions About The Genesis CreationAccount. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Living In Two Worlds . . 31

Q1112 Creation pp.qxp 6/18/08 3:21 PM Page 1

FOSSILS AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

PPacking in their tools, scientific

instruments, and lunch,Professor Jeffrey Greenbergand his geology studentswork up a sweat reachingtheir target rockface in SouthDakota’s Black Hills. As apart of their degree program,they’ve been spendingseveral midsummer weeks studying this jaggedmountain upthrust near thewestern edge of America’sgreat prairie. Getting out into the field like this is thejoy of a geologist’s life.

As a boy, Greenberg, likemost kids, had a fascinationwith rocks—but his curiosityled to a career! Jeff has had a lifelong desire tounderstand the story of theearth he believes is beingtold by the soil, rock strata,and fossilized plant andanimal remains that usually

go unnoticed beneath ourfeet.

There’s another factabout Jeff that’s importantfor us to understand. Inaddition to being a man ofscience, he is a man of faithwho trusts that the Genesisaccount of creation is true.Jeff believes that there is noreal contradiction betweenthe biblical account ofcreation and the storyrevealed by the remains ofpast life and geologic actionthat lie within the variousrock layers as a record of theearth’s history. They speakof the same events, but intwo different languages:divinely inspired words aboutthe creation and humanlyinterpreted data from thecreation. Correlating suchdissimilar renditions of truthis a tough task.

Because Jeff is a scientist who embraces the worldview of the Bible,he often finds himselfsurrounded by people who

2


© 2008 RBC Ministries

have opposing worldviews.On one hand, he works withmany scientists who do not share his Christian faith. When he seeksinformation of fossil finds or geological formations, he is likely to consult with a paleontologist, a paleobotanist, a paleozoologist, or otherswho specialize in ancient life (paleo is a Greek prefixthat means “ancient” or“prehistoric”). Many of these colleagues embrace a worldview that rejectsmuch of what Genesis bothdeclares and implies aboutthe origin of the cosmos.

On the other hand, Jeff also interacts withscholars who agree with him that the Genesiscreation account is true, butdisagree with his view thatthe earth is billions of yearsold. Many of them believethat the biblical accountimplies a cosmos that isseveral thousand rather

than millions of years old. How does someone

like Dr. Greenberg handlethe controversy? Moreimportant, how do any of us live honestly andfaithfully in the middle of so much ambiguity and disagreement?

In the following pages,we will attempt to honor thetruthfulness of the Genesisaccount of creation whilealso acknowledging thecontroversy over whatgeology, biology, and physicsappear to be telling us. Ourfocus will not be on whatpeople of faith disagree over,but rather on the mostimportant question: Whatcan we all affirm about thetruthfulness of the Genesisrecord of creation?

How can people of the Bible unite around anissue that too often dividesus? While standing apartfrom those who refuse tobelieve in a Creator, can we stand together on those

3



affirmations that, downthrough church history, have been regarded as thenecessary and essentialimplications of the Genesisaccount?

GOD’S TWOBOOKS:NATURE ANDTHE BIBLE

TTheologians have historicallycategorized the

Bible and nature as “twobooks,” which when readside by side combine toreveal the God of creation.The first book, comprised ofthe inspired Scriptures of theJewish and Christian faith, is called “special revelation.”Its combined influenceextends all over the worldand stands at the heart ofWestern culture, making the Bible the most widelytranslated, circulated, andstudied book in history. TheScriptures are considered

special, in part, because ifGod had not chosen humanwriters who were inspired bythe Spirit of truth to disclosethis unique and specificknowledge, we would not be aware of it.

The second of God’s tworevelations is the book ofnature, termed “generalrevelation.” This is theimplied record about ourCreator that is discovered inthe natural world around us.It is considered general inthat it is a disclosure ofreality that has beengenerally available to allpeople throughout the ages.It showcases the handiworkof God in the creation, andit serves as the record of Hisdirect and indirect actions inearth and human history.

So, according to theBible, God reveals Himselfnot only through theinspired words of Scripture,but also through the book of nature. The apostle Paulwrote, “Since the creation of

4



the world [the Creator’s]invisible attributes areclearly seen, beingunderstood by the thingsthat are made, even Hiseternal power andGodhead” (Rom. 1:20).

The Hebrew author of Psalm 19 expressed asimilar observation when he wrote, “The heavensdeclare the glory of God;and the firmament showsHis handiwork. Day untoday utters speech, and night unto night revealsknowledge. There is nospeech nor language wheretheir voice is not heard.Their line has gone outthrough all the earth, andtheir words to the end of the world” (vv.1-4).

General revelation, then,which is readable to anyonewilling to look, makesknown God’s glory (splendorand riches), His handiwork(creativity), His everlastingpower (including His moral perfection and His

capacity to control and alternatural forces), and Hisdivine nature (realities thatshow He is worthy of ourworship). Together thesedisclosures demonstrate that the natural worldcontains a vast collection of good gifts that reveal to us a great deal of truthabout the personhood,intelligence, and character of our Creator. The creationnot only shouts “God,” itdeclares, “He is powerful,wise, and wonderful!”

Reading BothBooks. Science, at its best,is an attempt to read andunderstand the book ofnature (or God’s works). Butat its worst, science takes itsfinite and materially limitedfindings about nature andturns it into a naturalisticfaith and philosophy thatignores or denies an infiniteand materially unlimitedsupernatural Creator.

As a result of itsnaturalistic focus and

5



because of the ascendancyof Darwinism within thescientific community,science has often beendominated by agnostics oratheists—even though amajority of scientists mightadmit some level of faith in a creator God. BeforeDarwin, however, it was thedominant belief in a Creatorseparate from His creationthat actually gave rise to thesciences, and Christianswere in the majority. In fact,it was belief in a rational,intelligently planned, andorderly creation that went a long way toward makingmodern science possible.Many of the pioneers ofscience—Kepler, Bacon,Newton, Pascal, Faraday,and others—were devoutbelievers of the Bible whoconsidered both thesupernatural and naturalrevelations to be witnessesof the truth about God andHis creation.

In an oral essay on

National Public Radio,Joseph Loconte pointed out that “too many skepticshave forgotten the massivehistorical debt they owe tothe Jewish and Christianbelief in an orderly cosmos.They cast religion as theenemy of science andprogress, when in fact it was the religious [biblical]worldview that helpedlaunch the scientificrevolution over threecenturies ago.”

Scientists of pastgenerations had no problemstudying the quantifiablefacts of general revelation(nature) while accepting thetruthfulness and authority of the Creator’s specialrevelation (the Scriptures).More than a few scientistsand great thinkers of thepast have walked in thetradition of men like Moses,David, and John the Baptistwho found, in nature and inthe wilderness, a sanctuarywhere the books of God’s

6



special and generalrevelation spoke in eloquent harmony.

The Problem OfReconciling BothBooks. In our day, manyhave concluded that specialand general revelation arenot in agreement when itcomes to the age and originof the world. The vestiges oflong-extinct life forms, forinstance, have caused manyto wonder if such artifactsfound in the natural worldare in conflict with therecord of the Bible.

A significant difficultywith fossilized remains hasto do with their apparentage. By the assumptions andmethods of modern science,these fossils are consideredto be millions of years old.While some students of the Bible see no conflictbetween faith in divinecreation and belief in anancient earth, others thinkthat a proper reading of theBible will not allow belief in

an earth more than 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Manywith this conviction say that the problem withmodern science is that ituses uniform assumptionsthat do not account for thekind of cataclysmic changesthat would have occurredfrom an event like aworldwide flood.

For young-earthadvocates, modern science’sestimates of geological time(earth history) and apparentastronomical time (cosmichistory) often seem to placeGod’s two revelations inopposition to each other. Soif you believe they really doconflict, you have to chooseto believe the Bible overscience—or attempt toexplain away the scientificevidence for a much oldercreation.

The disagreement,therefore, is not just betweencreationists on one side andnaturalistic evolutionists on the other. The conflict

7



extends to Bible scholarswho accept the truth of theGenesis account of creationbut disagree on how the earlychapters of Genesis shouldbe interpreted. Sometimesthe disagreements becomeintense, with both sidesaccusing the other of not being faithful to therevelation of Scripture or to the revelation of thenatural world.

With this conflict in view,let’s see if it’s possible toaffirm the truthfulness of theGenesis account in a waythat makes our differencesfar less divisive.

WHAT DOES ITMEAN TO SAY,“THE GENESISACCOUNT ISTRUE”?

TThe disagreementamong Bible scholarsabout how to explain

the appearance of the greatage of the earth is not themost significant issue.What’s most important iswhat we can all hold to betrue and essential in theGenesis account of creation.It’s far more imperative forfollowers of Christ to agree that along with theevidence from nature . . .

1. Genesis AffirmsThe Existence Of God.When we declare that theGenesis account of creationis true, we’re saying webelieve that the cosmosowes its material existenceto an eternal, nonmaterial,personal Spirit. The firstwords of the Bible are, “In

8

What’s mostimportant is whatwe can all hold to be true andessential in theGenesis account

of creation.



the beginning God createdthe heavens and the earth”(Gen. 1:1). Moses must have written these wordssomewhere en route fromEgypt to Canaan. He hadseen the evidence of God’ssupernatural power in a burning bush that wasn’t consumed. He hadwitnessed the supernaturalevents of the Hebrewexodus. And then he hadexperienced the specialrevelation of God in hisdirect encounter with Him on Mt. Sinai. Mosescertainly would have hadreason to accept withoutquestion the Holy Spirit’srevelation to him that “inthe beginning God createdthe heavens and the earth.”

This affirmation,however, is opposed to the worldview of naturalismthat dominates in modernscientific institutions.Philosophical naturalism,which appears to be thepresupposition of most

scientists, does notacknowledge God or asupernatural origin for thecreation. It takes for grantedthat the material world is allthat exists. This view wassummed up by modernscientist Carl Sagan in hispopular Cosmos series: “TheCosmos is all that is or everwas or ever will be.”

2. Genesis AffirmsThe Power Of God.When we declare that theGenesis account of creationis true, we’re saying webelieve that by the power of His eternal word andwisdom, God spoke the material world intoexistence. By the word ofHis mouth, God broughtsomething out of nothing,order out of formlessness,and light out of darkness.

The rest of the Biblerepeats this creation theme.The songbook of Israeldeclares, “By the word of theLord the heavens were made. . . . He spoke, and it was

9



done” (Ps. 33:6,9). Thisaffirmation is in contrast tothe naturalistic worldviewthat the universe and all itcontains, being natural andmaterial, could not have asupernatural and spiritualorigin.

3. Genesis AffirmsThe Personhood OfGod. When we declare that the Genesis account ofcreation is true, we’re sayingwe believe that the cosmoshas its source in a livingdeity, a divine Person who is good, loving, and merciful,and that the original creationprovided evidence of thosepersonal characteristics. The beauty and utility of the natural world have their origin in their Creator’scapacity for intelligent andloving intention. The originalliving things on the earthwere good, in part, becausethey reflected the knowledge,wisdom, and infinite geniusof our Creator. God’sindividual character is

the source of all that isbeneficial and beautiful.

Moses reflected on thispersonal involvement of theCreator with His creationwhen he said, “God saweverything that He hadmade, and indeed it wasvery good” (Gen. 1:31).Later David declared, “TheLord is gracious and full ofcompassion, slow to angerand great in mercy. The Lordis good to all, and Histender mercies are over allHis works” (Ps. 145:8-9).

This belief in an infinite,personal Creator is incontrast to the naturalisticworldview that doesn’trecognize a creator butclaims that what we callpersonhood is the product of purposeless evolution.According to naturalism, no mind could have had afunction in the creation ofthe material world. Personalattributes like goodness,love, and willfulness couldnot have had a role in the

10



origin and development of all things, nor is apersonal God involved in creation’s maintenanceand continuance.

4. Genesis AffirmsThe Purposefulness Of God. When we declarethat the Genesis account ofcreation is true, we’re sayingwe believe that the order ofour material world has itssource in the purpose andplan of an all-wise and all-powerful Creator. By thedesign and loving intent ofGod, the astronomicalfeatures of the universe, aswell as the oceans, land,and atmosphere of the earthwere formed. The Creatorprogressively invested Hisgenius in the formation ofthe elements, plants, andanimals of the natural worldand established theirinterdependencies. By Hiswillful and purposeful plan,God created all life-formsand enabled each of them to reproduce “according

to its kind” (Gen. 1:24). The book of God’s special

revelation explains what wesee around us: Nature’smathematical precision andoperation is the result ofGod’s purposeful andintelligent design. “He has made the earth by Hispower, He has establishedthe world by His wisdom,and has stretched out theheavens at His discretion”(Jer. 10:12). It was this great awareness thatinspired the songwriter ofIsrael to declare, “O Lord,how manifold are Yourworks! In wisdom You havemade them all. The earth isfull of Your possessions”(Ps. 104:24).

This belief that theabundance of life on earth is inherently valuable,meaningful, and purposefulis in radical contrast to thenaturalistic worldview,which states that theexistence of the cosmos is accidental and that the

11



features of the earth,including life, are merely the unintended andunplanned result of matterplus time plus chance.

5. Genesis AffirmsThe SustainingProvidence Of God.When we declare that theGenesis account of creationis true, we’re saying that the triune God constantlyoversees and sustains thecreation and continues togrant life to all living things.

After singing to the One who laid thefoundations of the earth, the psalmist celebrated the sustaining work of theCreator when he wrote:

He sends the springs into the valleys; they flowamong the hills. They givedrink to every beast of thefield; the wild donkeysquench their thirst. Bythem the birds of theheavens have their home; they sing amongthe branches. He waters

the hills from His upperchambers; the earth issatisfied with the fruit of Your works. He causesthe grass to grow for thecattle, and vegetation forthe service of man, that hemay bring forth food fromthe earth . . . . These allwait for You, that Youmay give them their foodin due season. . . . Youhide Your face, they aretroubled; You take awaytheir breath, they die andreturn to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit,they are created; and Yourenew the face of the earth(Ps. 104:10-14,27,29-30).This belief in a creating

God who also sustains Hiscreation by the word of Hismouth is in contrast to thenaturalistic worldview thatfundamental natural lawsand mathematical principlesof unknown origin sustainand maintain the integrity of the universe. That nodeity is required for either

12



energy or matter to exist is afundamental presuppositionof philosophical naturalism.

6. Genesis AffirmsThat God Made ManAnd Woman In HisLikeness. When we declare that the Genesisaccount of creation is true,we’re saying we believe thatthe personhood of man andwoman has its origin in apersonal Creator who madeus in His own image. Tocrown His creation, God tookthe nonliving matter of theearth to create a living man.Then, to provide man with acompanion and complementthat would assure theperpetuation of the race, Hetook living tissue from theman to create a woman. The Bible calls this originalhuman pair Adam and Eve.

The book of God’s specialrevelation says, “So Godcreated man in His ownimage; in the image of GodHe created him; male andfemale He created them”

(Gen. 1:27); “and the LordGod formed man of the dustof the ground, and breathedinto his nostrils the breath oflife; and man became a livingbeing” (Gen. 2:7); “then therib which the Lord God hadtaken from man He madeinto a woman” (Gen. 2:22).

This belief that of allGod’s creatures only manand woman were made inGod’s likeness is in contrastto the naturalistic worldview,which emphasizes thatmankind is merely theproduct of unguidedevolution and that mankindhas no special nature relateddirectly to the personhood or loving intention of asupernatural Creator. In theview of naturalism, peopleare merely the most evolvedof animals and have nospecial relationship to apersonal God.

7. Genesis AffirmsThat We Were MadeFor Relationships.When we declare that the

13



Genesis account of creationis true, we’re saying webelieve that the relationshipswe enjoy with all creationhave their origin in a Godwho is eternally relational(the Trinity). The result ofGod’s purposeful creationwas a series of relationshipsthat explain much about themeaning of life.

Not only did God createpeople, He entered into apersonal relationship withthem. In the beginning, He was in fellowship withAdam and Eve and walkedwith them in the Garden ofEden (Gen. 3:8).

The relationship of God to the earth was ownership.The people of Israel declaredtheir acceptance of this claimwhen they sang, “The earthis the Lord’s, and all itsfullness, the world and thosewho dwell therein” (Ps. 24:1).

The relationship ofmankind to the earth wasstewardship. From the firstdays of man’s life on earth,

he understood that hisresponsibility was to care for the earth that his Makerentrusted to him: “The LordGod took the man and puthim in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it” (Gen.2:15).

This belief that we weremade for relationships thathave their origin in ourtriune Creator is in contrastto the naturalistic worldviewthat does not acknowledgeGod. Naturalism denies the existence of any interpersonal orauthoritative relationships or responsibilities aside from those necessitated by evolution.

8. Genesis AffirmsThat Disorder Is TheResult Of A Rebellion.When we declare that theGenesis account of creationis true, we’re saying webelieve that there was anoriginal rebellion in theunseen spirit world. Thisrevolt was carried over into

14



the material world by asinful spirit who persuadedthe first man and woman to disregard their Creator’sterms for the perpetuation of human life in harmonywith His purposes. Thisdisobedience resulted in the spiritual and eventualphysical death of Adam andEve. It also had a negativeeffect on the rest of thecreation.

To remind the humanfamily of its fallen condition,God added consequences tothe human rebellion. Otherjudgments followed, many of which changed the natureof life on earth and distortedthe original relationships.According to Genesis, manyof the problems that burdenthe natural world have theirorigin in God’s decision toadd struggle and pain to thelife of His creatures as a sort of severe mercy. Thesejudgments, which confirmedthat we could find fulfillmentonly in proper relationship

to God, can be seen in thebiblical descriptions of whathappened in the fall (Gen.3:1-7), the curse (Gen. 3:16-19), the flood (Gen. 6–9),and the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:1-9).

The belief that much ofour suffering and hardship is the result of humanrebellion and our Creator’sloving discipline is incontrast to the naturalisticworldview, which holds thatuntil the advent of modernman all changes on theearth were unrelated topurposeful and intelligentactivity—unless from someextraterrestrial naturalintelligence other than God.

9. Genesis AffirmsGod’s Desire To RescueWhat Has Been Lost.When we declare that theGenesis account of creationis true, we’re saying webelieve that after the spiritualfall of our first parents, theexperience of human sin anddeath created problems that

15



people could not solve ontheir own (Gen. 3:15; Rev.13:8).

Throughout the rest of the Bible, we read therecord of our Creator’s lovingpursuit of a lost and fallenhumanity. This redemptiontheme runs throughout theOld and New Testamentsand is fulfilled in the most inexpressible and miraculous act ofintervention. The NewTestament summarizes this redemptive rescue:

In the beginning was theWord, and the Word waswith God, and the Wordwas God. He was in thebeginning with God. Allthings were made throughHim, and without Himnothing was made thatwas made. . . . He was inthe world, and the worldwas made through Him,and the world did notknow Him. He came toHis own, and His own didnot receive Him. But as

many as received Him, tothem He gave the right tobecome children of God,to those who believe inHis name: who were born,not of blood, nor of thewill of the flesh, nor of thewill of man, but of God.And the Word becameflesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld Hisglory, the glory as of the only begotten of theFather, full of grace andtruth (Jn. 1:1-3,10-14).This belief that God

personally appeared onearth and intervened torescue us from sin anddeath is in contrast to thenaturalistic worldview thatall people, like all animals,will eventually die,decompose, and be goneforever—that nothing withinthe human being survivesdeath except our chemicalcomponents, which will berecycled naturally toperpetuate life and itsevolution.

16



10. Genesis AffirmsGod’s Ability ToRestore What HasBeen Lost. When wedeclare that the Genesisaccount of creation is true,we’re saying we believe in a God who is powerful andmerciful enough to bringabout the eventualrestoration, renewal, andreunification of the entirecreation. Even though theGenesis creation accountgives us only a fleetingforeshadow of God’sredemptive purposes, this prefiguration is thebeginning of a great storythat ends with the abode of God the Father and reignof God the Son on the earthas it is pictured in the finaltwo chapters of the book ofRevelation. The rest of thestory assures us that theparadise lost by Adam andEve will be regained.

The apostle Peterproclaimed:

Repent therefore and be

converted, that your sinsmay be blotted out, so thattimes of refreshing maycome from the presence ofthe Lord, and that He maysend Jesus Christ, who waspreached to you before,whom heaven must receive until the times ofrestoration of all things,which God has spoken bythe mouth of all His holyprophets since the worldbegan (Acts 3:19-21; seealso Isa. 11:6-9, Rom.8:19-23, and Eph. 1:10).The belief that God will

eventually restore all thathas been lost is in contrastto the naturalistic worldviewthat recognizes no God andno Savior for threatenedhumanity. Naturalism assertsthat there is no future hopefor the individual person,just a general hope for ahumanity that will surviveonly by doing what it can to assure the “progress” ofevolution. This is in spite ofthe conclusion of renowned

17



evolutionist Michael Rusewho insists that, “Evolutionis going nowhere—andrather slowly at that” (TakingDarwin Seriously, 1986,p.203).

SOME KEYIMPLICATIONSOF THE GENESISACCOUNT

TThose who accept the Genesis account of creation do so with

the conviction that the bookof God’s general revelationalso tells the story of aDesigner and Creator ofinexpressible intelligence,wisdom, and power. Thisconclusion brings someadditional implications:

1. NaturalisticExplanations For TheOrigin Of Life Are NotAdequate. Those whorecognize the beauty,purposefulness, and powerof the Genesis account have reason to reject as

inadequate any evolutionaryexplanations for the origin of mankind that deny anintelligent, loving, good, andsuperintending Creator whois the origin of everythingour senses perceive. MichaelPolanyi, one of the 20thcentury’s great scientificphilosophers, created adisturbance in the halls ofacademia by declaring in1958: “The book of Genesisand its great pictorialillustrations, like the frescoesof Michelangelo, remain afar more intelligent accountof the nature and origin ofthe universe than therepresentation of the worldas a chance collocation ofatoms” (Personal Knowledge,1958, p.284).

Students of Scriptureoften feel that the realities of creation make naturalisticexplanations more fancifulthan the biblicalaffirmations.

The findings of sciencestill give us no proof and

18



little evidence that truly“simple” life-forms coulddevelop into the kind ofcomplexity and diversity wesee in the world around us.Consider the following: thestrong genetic resistance tochange found among livingthings; the unfathomableamount of nonmaterialinformation required toorganize and maintain evenelementary life functions;the overwhelming evidenceof a universe fine-tuned forthe existence of life on ourlone planet; and the absenceof evidence for anythingtruly “simple” in the cosmos. Those factorscurrently stand opposed to the basic naturalisticexplanation of life’s originsthat no intelligence anddeliberation stand behindthe reality we know.Wherever science reacheswith its most sophisticatedinstruments, one still findsawesome complexity andprofound mystery.

2. UnansweredQuestions Are To Be Expected AndWelcomed. Once weunderstand that the cosmoshas been created by aneternal, infinite, lovingCreator, who also took theinitiative to communicate tous through His two books,we can accept the mysteryof what He has chosen notto tell us.

For the honest person who desires to see consensus between the special and generalrevelations, this can createtension. Such tension,however, does not have to hinder the quest forunderstanding. Actually, itcan empower it. Since bothnature and the Scriptures are from the mind and hand of God who is “fromeverlasting” (Ps. 93:2), wecan enjoy pursuing andpondering what is currentlyunknown. No fact arisingfrom scientific study should

19



threaten the faith of thefollower of Christ, becauseHe is the Author of bothbooks. To be sure, mankind’snatural curiosity is strongevidence for the fact thatpeople are made in theimage of God—who maywell delight in every one ofour discoveries about Himand His works.

3. Abuse Of God’sCreation Is NotAcceptable. From thebeginning, it was obviousthat this natural world was a treasure entrusted by theCreator to those who boreHis likeness. So it’s clearlymore important to ourCreator to honor Him in our care and use of what He gave us than toarticulate opinions thatcreate divisions over whatHe chose not to tell us. It’sour wonderful responsibilityto be humble students andfaithful stewards of God’shandiwork. Those whoaccept the Genesis account

have so many reasons to be among the world’s mostardent “earthkeepers.”

SO WHY THECONTROVERSY?

IIn the last half of the 20th century, a number of evangelical Christians

and organizations came tobelieve that to maintain theintegrity of Scripture, the 6 creation days must beconsidered standard solar days. To honor theScriptures and resist theinfluence of philosophicalnaturalism, they believe it’s important to question the prevailing geologicalunderstanding that the earthis billions of years old. Byemphasizing the globalnature of the flood in thedays of Noah, they reasonthat such a catastrophicevent would distort anyscientific measurements that assume more gradualand uniform variances in

20



the geologic record of theearth. They argue that trueorthodoxy requires us tobelieve that the days ofcreation were literal, 24-hourdays. For many who holdthis view, these conclusionsare a matter of deepconviction. They reason that if the first chapters of Genesis are not read asscientifically specific, the rest of the historical narrativewould be seen as little morethan a spiritualized narrativethat has little relationship toliteral reality.

Other evangelicals,however, remain convincedthat the first chapters ofGenesis are a rich historicalaccount that accurately—butgenerally—reflects what Goddid over long periods ofancient history. These old-earth creationists areconvinced that the openingwords of Genesis express aninspired creation narrativethat is a grand, intelligent,and beautiful apologetic for

the divine inspiration of theBible. Instead of concludingthat evidence for an ancientearth was created by acatastrophic flood, this groupagrees with many theologians

of past generations whobelieved that the earth ismillions of years old—andthat such a belief is not at all inconsistent with theScriptures.

This view, widely heldthroughout church history,

21

Some reason that if the first chaptersof Genesis are not

read as scientificallyspecific, the rest of the historical

narrative would beseen as little morethan a spiritualizednarrative that haslittle relationship to literal reality.



is summarized by HenryThiessen of the WheatonCollege Graduate School. In his Lectures In SystematicTheology (1949, Eerdmans),he concurred with WilliamG. T. Shedd in his DogmaticTheology (1889, Scribners):

Was there a long or short period between theoriginal creation in verse1 [of Genesis] and the 6 days of creation in therest of the chapter? Sheddsays: “The doctrine of animmense time, prior tothe 6 creative days, was acommon view among thefathers and schoolmen”(Vol. I, p.474). The firstcreative act occurred inthe dateless past, andbetween it and the workof the 6 days there isample room for all thegeologic ages. Theinterval may have runinto thousands or eveninto millions of years. . . .Are the 6 days to bethought of as long

periods or as 6 literaldays? Shedd says,speaking generally, “The patristic andmedieval exegesis makesthem to be long periods,not days of 24 hours. Thelatter interpretation hasprevailed only in themodern church” (Vol. I,p.475). We derive no help in the interpretationfrom the term day; for it is used in various ways in the Bible (p.164).Thiessen then quotes

several passages and namestheologians and scientistswho held this view in hisday. He concludes:

All of these point out thewonderful harmony ofthe account in Genesisand the findings ofgeology (p.165).Other conservative

scholars who have argued forthe “pictorial summary” viewof the Genesis account ofcreation include some of thegreatest theologians of the

22



past 150 years: Lewis SperryChafer of Dallas TheologicalSeminary, Charles Feinbergof Talbot TheologicalSeminary, James Orr ofTrinity College, AlfredEdersheim of Oxford, Charles Hodge of PrincetonTheological Seminary, andAugustus Strong of RochesterTheological Seminary (whenPrinceton and Rochesterwere evangelical).

Because there is a lack of consensus among thosewho maintain a high view of Scripture, this is one ofthose areas where humbleand honest students,scholars, and laymen on all sides would do well topursue the truth withoutjudging the motives orfaithfulness of those whoseconvictions remain withinthe probable or possibleimplications of Scripture.Agreement on what it means to say that theGenesis account of origins is true should be our focus.

QUESTIONSABOUT THEGENESISCREATIONACCOUNT

LLet’s look at somequestions that often

arise whenever theGenesis account of creationis discussed.

According to theBible, how old is theearth? We don’t know. TheBible doesn’t give us thatinformation. But throughoutthe centuries, devoutbelievers have pondered the age of the earth. Manythought that all one had todo to determine the age ofthe earth biblically was toapply simple math andsome logical deductions tothe genealogies of Genesis 4,5, 10, and 11. But a problemis created by the limitationsof the language. The wordbegot used in our EnglishBible to indicate the

23



paternal line betweengenerations does not alwaysmean father to son. It oftenrefers to the great-great-grandfather (or any numberof “greats”) of the namedindividual, with the in-between (and apparentlyless significant) progenitorsunnamed. So there is noaccurate way to measure the generations back fromAbraham to Adam.

Yet while the Bibledoesn’t say how young theearth is, it also doesn’t saythat it is as old as moderncosmological and geologicalstudies indicate. Conflictingevidence has compelledsome Bible scholars tosuggest that the earth wouldobviously have been createdwith the appearance of age.They believe that since mostliving things would havebeen created in a maturestate and had to appear tohave grown, so also thenonliving elements uponwhich they depend for life

would have had to showapparent age. Distantgalaxies would appear to have been transmittinglight for millions of years.The earth’s crust wouldappear to indicate “ancient” sedimentation,volcanic activity, erosion,decomposition, andchemical reactions.

That reasoning isconsidered implausible by many others who areequally convinced that a normal analysis of thecreation must acknowledgethe evidence of great age.They will point out thatthere are problems in saying that a “correct”interpretation of the 6 daysof the Genesis creationrequires us to hold thatthose days were 24-hourperiods. They will say, forexample, that the first 3days passed before the sun,moon, and stars were evencreated (Gen. 1:14-19). Theyalso point out that while an

24



earth created with theappearance of age wouldhave to demonstrateevidence of long-runningnatural processes, it wouldnot have to contain fossils of divinely fabricated livingcreatures.

In either case, it’simportant to note that theBible doesn’t say how old or how young the earth is. It doesn’t say whetherthousands or millions ofyears lie between the lines of sacred Scripture. While we might wish otherwise, the Bible doesn’t directly tell us how to interpret theenormous appearance of agethat seems to be reflected inthe book of God’s generalrevelation. But the Bible doesgive us pause by implyingthat some scientific datacould be skewed by God’sacts of judgment (the fall andthe flood) that had a physicalimpact upon the creation.

Because of the differentways we interpret such

evidence, it’s not surprisingthat there are differences ofopinion about how to read God’s two books inrelationship to each other.

Dr. James Sawyer ofWestern Seminary haspointed out that when theInternational Council OnBiblical Inerrancy wasformed in 1978, “thefounding membership heldover 30 discrete positionswith reference to theinterpretation of Genesis 1.Only one of these positionsinvolved a 6-day recent

25

While we might wishotherwise, the Bible

doesn’t directly tell ushow to interpret the

enormous appearanceof age that seems to be reflected in the book of God’sgeneral revelation.



creation.” Apparently, most of those on the council felt that the book of God’s words did notdemand that the days ofcreation be consideredstandard 24-hour days—or that no time elapsedbetween the days.

Many committedChristian scholars continueto debate this issue. We haveplenty of reason, therefore, toallow for an honest differenceof opinion and conviction onthis issue. There’s no needfor bitter debate whenattempting to explain whyGod’s two books appear attimes to be in conflict. Theimportant thing is to considerit all with a humble spirit. AsDr. Sawyer explains, whenwe cannot distinguishbetween our understandingof the truth and the truthitself, we are boastfullyclaiming that “we have, at least on this issue, thecomplete understanding of God Himself.”

Further, genuine humilitywould also demand thatthere be as much room for our misunderstanding

the message of generalrevelation as there is for our failure to understand the full meaning of specialrevelation—the Bible. Bothrevelations undoubtedlypresent aspects of realitywell beyond the grasp ofhuman reasoning andexperimentation.

Shouldn’t theGenesis account of creation be readliterally? A significantfeature of the controversyover the age of the earth asit is understood from the

26

There’s no need for bitter debatewhen attempting

to explain why God’stwo books appear attimes to be in conflict.



first chapter of Genesis isthe principle of historical-grammatical interpretationthat is so foundational tohistoric orthodoxy. The aimof the historical-grammaticalmethod is to discover themeaning of the passage asthe original author wouldhave intended, and what theoriginal hearers would haveunderstood.

Those who hold to ayoung-earth view say theyare reading the account“literally” and are thereforemore in line with belief inbiblical reliability, a cardinalconviction of evangelicalChristianity. Because theyread the Genesis 1 creationaccount as describing eventsthat took place over a periodof 6 successive 24-hour days,they see any attempt to readmore time into the process asopposing the Word of God.

Those theologians whobelieve in an earth that isbillions of years old (theview of most contemporary

geologists) are often just ascommitted to the reliabilityof the Scriptures. But theyare likely to point out, asHenry Virkler does in hisbook on the principles and process of biblicalinterpretation: “As muchdistortion of the author’smeaning results frominterpreting a literalstatement figuratively as from interpreting afigurative statement literally”(Hermeneutics: PrinciplesAnd Processes Of BiblicalInterpretation, 1981, p.28).They see a need to take the conclusions of geologyseriously and believe thatthe account of creation inGenesis 1 and 2 allowsacceptance of evidence foran exceedingly old earth.

Down through the yearsof church history, scholarswith a high view of Scripturehave disagreed amongthemselves whether or notthe language of the creationaccount was intended to be

27



read as a stylized literarynarrative or as a scientificallyspecific description.

Can someonebelieve the Bible and still believe inevolution? It depends onwhat is meant by “believingin evolution.” It’s importantto understand that the wordevolution merely means “to change” or “to develop.” It would be a mistake tolimit the word evolutiononly to the contemporarynaturalistic scheme, which holds that all of life came about through the unplanned andundirected process oforganisms progressingthrough billions of yearsfrom simple nonlivingmolecules to mankind.

From beginning to end,the Bible declares that allcosmic forces and elementsare the handiwork of a divineArtist who was intimatelyinvolved in creating man.Someone, then, could not

accept the naturalistic claimthat the creation process wasGod-less and also believe that the Genesis account of creation is true. If theCreator is a good, loving, and sovereign God, nothingin His creation takes placewithout His personaloversight. The God whoattends the death of asparrow certainly would haveattended its creation. If thebiblical account of creation is true, what appears to thephilosophical naturalist to bethe result of mere chance isonly a human perception,not a fact.

Those who have closelyexamined God’s generalrevelation recognize that the characteristics of manyliving creatures do changeover time (like many of thefascinating creatures of theGalapagos Islands studiedby Charles Darwin). Those who have completeconfidence in the Biblewould conclude that

28



God created them with the capacity to adapt to achanging environment. Thisis a form of evolution. Theseadaptations that Darwin and other scientists haveobserved over the years are

sometimes called “micro-evolution”: small-scalechanges that may actuallyproduce new species (newforms of the same creaturethat do not generally breedwith the old forms).

So, while the Bible might easily allow for micro-evolution, it’s more difficultto see how the Genesisnarrative could besuggesting a God-directedprocess that extends over

billions of years frommolecules to man. Such alarge-scale “self-creating”process is what many call“macro-evolution,” and it isthis comprehensive schemethat the general publictypically understands to be evolution.

Theistic evolutionists,however, consider theGenesis creation account to be a divinely inspiredpictorial overview, not ascientifically specificdescription. And theybelieve that macro-evolutionhas occurred. But they alsobelieve that it is a God-designed process just like all the other naturalprocesses God conceived for the development andperpetuation of life. Theyfirmly reject the naturalisticsuggestion that evolutionoccurred without thepresence and care of anoverseeing Creator. Theisticevolutionists don’t believethat natural selection could

29

If the Creator is a good, loving, and

sovereign God, nothingin His creation takes

place without Hispersonal oversight.



create anything withoutsupernatural attention. Theybelieve that evolution as itwas articulated by Darwin is an awesome naturalprocess established by God,just like the dozens of otherprocesses God instituted forman’s survival—the watercycle, the carbon cycle,photosynthesis, plantgermination, reproduction,and so forth. And to be fairto Darwin, at the end of hisbook The Origin Of Species,he himself attributed to Godnature’s capacity to progressfrom molecules to man. He believed that evolutionworked in accord with “lawsimpressed on matter by theCreator.”

Although those whoaccept the “billions of years”state of affairs do so withoutdirect support from thespecial revelation of God,they are convinced they arereading the God-directedgeneral revelation moreaccurately and faithfully

than those who reject thebelief that the cosmos isancient and that all of life,including that of mankind,came from a commonancestor.

Many renownedevangelical theologians over the centuries, fromAugustine to B. B. Warfieldto J. I. Packer, have believedthat a long and gradualcreation process directed bya loving and superintendingCreator is not contrary to theGenesis account of creation.Packer, author of theChristian classic KnowingGod, made this assertion: “I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture . . . but I cannotsee that anything Scripturesays, in the first chapters ofGenesis or elsewhere, bearson the biological theory ofevolution one way or theother” (The EvangelicalAnglican Identity Problem,1978, p.5).

Views like Packer’shighlight how important it is

30



for Christians who disagreeon the matter of origins andthe meaning of the Genesisaccount to do so in graceand love without smearingeach other with accusationsof unfaithfulness to either of God’s two books. Becauseof such differences amongcommitted followers ofChrist, it will certainlyremain divisive anddetrimental to the cause of Christ for the church tomake the process of divinecreation, rather than the factof divine creation, a test ofChristian orthodoxy.

LIVING IN TWOWORLDS

WWhen ProfessorGreenberg and

his geologystudents return from theirstudies in the Black Hills,they go their separate waysto different residences andchurches. Some journeyalong I-80 and pass throughthe “Thornton Deposit,”where on each side of thehighway steep walls of rock drop 200 feet into anenormous limestone quarry.The pit is merely a dent inthe top layer of what mostgeologists believe is anancient saltwater reef thatextends down almost a mile into the earth’s crust. This formation is composedprimarily of the remains ofsmall sea creatures that aresimilar to organisms we findtoday in the earth’s shallowoceans. By today’s rate of procreation, death, andsedimentation, however,

31

It’s detrimental to thecause of Christ for thechurch to make theprocess of divine

creation, rather thanthe fact of divinecreation, a test of

Christian orthodoxy.



this sea would have had to exist undisturbed bymajor upheavals for about 20 million years.

While this phenomenon convincesmost Christian geologistsand paleontologists that the earth is truly millions ofyears old, others continue tohold that such formations—found all over the world—could have been created by hydraulic forces andsedimentation processes like those they assumewould have occurred in a cataclysmic flood like the one described in Genesis 6–9.

Those differentperspectives bring us backto where we began. Howdoes someone like ProfessorGreenberg live within thesetwo worlds? More important,how do any of us livehonestly and faithfully in themiddle of such uncertaintyand disagreement?

One answer is found in

our being as honest as wecan with the messages givento us by God’s two books.Both books declare withtheir own forms ofeloquence the power andwisdom of the Creator. Bothbooks demonstrate that it isGod who has made us andeverything else. Yet bothstop short of giving us final answers about manyquestions of time andprocess. In these matters, we must live faithfully,graciously, and humbly withour differences. What we

know and agree on is farmore important than whatwe don’t know or fullyunderstand.

32

What we knowand agree on is

far more importantthan what we don’t know or

fully understand.



Our mission is to make the life-changing wisdom of the Bible understandable and accessible to all.

Discovery Series presents the truth of Jesus Christ to the world in balanced, engaging, and accessible resources that show the relevance of Scripture for all areas of life. All Discovery Series booklets are available at no cost and can be used in personal study, small groups, or ministry outreach.

To partner with us in sharing God’s Word, click this link to donate. Thank you for your support of Discovery Series resources and Our Daily Bread Ministries.

Many people, making even the smallest of donations, enable Our Daily Bread Ministries to reach others with the life-changing wisdom of the Bible. We are not funded or endowed by any group or denomination.

CLICK TO DONATE

http://ourdailybread.org/donate/

the genesis account of creation

Documents