So maybe I've spent more time looking at that Genesis than the one in the Bible, but that "16 bit power" was amazing, right?I've said this before, but I had always been bothered by the fact that the Biblical creation accounts just didn't seem to match what I learned in science. Over the last couple of years, it has been my personal mission to learn as much as I could about the Biblical creation accounts and their many interpretations. As a result, I finally feel that I have sifted through enough material to have a firm grasp on the popular views of Genesis that exist.
Below, I will summarize each of the 7 interpretations of Genesis that I have come across in my exploration. Again, I aim to be as objective as possible while presenting these views. It is not my desire to tell the reader what to believe, but instead I hope to inform those who may not have the time and/or desire that I had to go over all of this material. If at any point I should happen to provide false information, misrepresent a view, or seem particularly biased, please leave a comment or send me an email.
View 1: Naturalistic Atheism
Naturalistic Atheism suggests that the formation of our universe can be explained by natural (i.e. scientific) means. According to this view, the universe started with a Big Bang, which eventually resulted in the formation of our Earth, which was then followed by the origin of life and the development of species through evolution. In other words, Naturalistic Atheism says there is no god; therefore, the creation accounts in Bible are to be treated as mere ancient texts containing outdated worldviews.
Side Note: The six remaining views each uphold the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, which is the belief that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error. This means that these views agree on the inspiration and authority of the Bible and only differ in their interpretation of the text.
View 2: Young-Earth Creationism (YEC)
Young-Earth Creationism (or Recent Creationism) is a popular view among many conservative Christians. This view holds to a straightforward interpretation of the text in Genesis in which the universe was created by God during six literal 24-hour days approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. YEC believes that God used supernatural (i.e. not scientific) means to create and shape the universe into what we observe today.
Side Note: Most people are very familiar with View 1 and View 2 because of the well-publicized feud between Young-Earth Creationists and Naturalistic Atheists. The following views are not as well-known or discussed, but have been popular during various times in history.
View 3: Day Age View (Progressive Creationism)
Progressive Creationism suggests that the six days in Genesis 1 were not 24-hour days, but were really long periods of time during which God supernaturally and gradually performed creative acts according to the order outlined in Genesis 1. The Day Age View notes that the order of creation in Genesis 1 is compatible with the order of events described by current theories in cosmology and geology. Some Progressive Creationists also believe in Theistic Evolution, the idea that God used evolution during the creative process.
View 4: Analogical Days View
This view notes that the Bible often uses familiar language and concepts to describe supernatural events. With this in mind, the Analogical Days viewpoint says that God’s six work days in Genesis 1 are analogous to our human workdays. In this way, the creation accounts both describe God’s creation of the world (in a non-scientific sense) and also establishes the importance of the Sabbath, a day of rest in Hebrew culture.
View 5: Fiat Days View
The Fiat Days view suggests that God spoke the creation commands (or fiats) during six literal 24-hour days; however, the results of these commands may have occurred over long periods of time. The Fiat Days view stresses the fact that God created the world, but it is not concerned with the means by which these commands were carried out. Basically, this interpretation is a conservative mixture of the Young-Earth and Old-Earth viewpoints.
View 6: Framework Interpretation
The Framework Interpretation says that the days and objects in Genesis 1 were chosen for a symbolic reason. Here, Days 1 to 3 represent kingdoms (light, sky and sea, dry land and plants), Days 4 to 6 represent the “kings” of each kingdom (sun and moon, birds and sea creatures, land animals and humans), and Day 7 sets God over all Creations as the King of Kings.
View 7: Cosmic Temple Inauguration
The Cosmic Temple Inauguration view claims that that the Bible was written for everybody but specifically to Ancient Israel. This means that the Bible should be read as a text that has more in common with ancient literature than modern science. This is the view outlined in a book I recently read called The Lost World of Genesis One (you can read a quick summary here). In it, the author proposes that Genesis 1 describes the creation of functions (time, weather, agriculture, etc.) and not matter. This view essentially takes the Framework Interpretation and plugs it into its ancient context.
Conclusion
I suppose View 8 would consist of those people who piece together aspects of all the other views.
And then of course, there are also those people who have View 9 and are either unsure which one they believe, or have not really taken the effort to look into it. It is my hope that this series of blogs will reduce the number of people who consider themselves a part of the View 9 group.
Nice summary. I'd make a couple of comments, if I may.
ReplyDeleteYou say that young earth creationism is based on biblical inerrancy. That's true, in a way, but it is not true that none of the others are. I don't think you meant to say that, but as a matter of fact a lot of young earth creationists will make the argument that "the Bible says six 24 hour days so if you believe creation took longer than six days then you don't believe the Bible is inerrant."
But that's just not true. People who take the other views believe the author was not making any claims about how long it took God to create. It's a literary or symbolic or analogical feature of the text that the author and everyone who lived at that time would have understood in that way (literary, symbolic, analogical). In other words, John Walton can believe in biblical inerrancy without contradicting himself.
But that does not mean that all views are equal. It's really important to be careful and read the text as the original readers would have read it. The text is historical, literary, and written for people in an ancient Near Eastern context. Views that try to read literally (not literarily) are trying to impose artificial restrictions on the reading of the text (what you are calling young earth creation, day age, fiat days).
www.toddjana.com/u/gap3
Hi Todd. Thanks for visiting and taking the time to comment. Sorry I didn't comment back sooner, but I was away on a weekend field trip.
ReplyDeleteI think we are both trying to make the same point: that there are many different ways to interpret scripture while still upholding the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy (I wrote a side note before View 2 (YEC) to try and make that clear).
I agree 100% with your last paragraph. That is something I want get to in the coming weeks and months as I break down the common support for and objections to each view.
Maybe you can help me out and expand on any areas where I may not have all of the answers.