Genesis 1 And 2: Non Literal Interpretation

In the book of Genesis, the creation story is recorded in two chapters. While it would be simple to just assume that the two are interconnected, it is after critical examination of the text that this notion may prove to be incorrect. After comparing and contrasting the diction and details that are given in both of these chapters, it is clear that there is a subtle change in the style of the writing. Taking this into consideration, there is evidence to believe that these narratives are two independent versions of the creation story.

The age of the earth has been debated for years. Secular scientist believes in old earth and Christian scientist believe in a young earth. But there seems to be more logical evidence for a young earth. Young earth explains soft tissue found in fossils, the sun paradox, evidence of sediment on the seafloor, and to the age of a comet. It fills in many gaps that secular scientist cannot fill. I hope that you take into account the evidence, but it is ultimately up to you to choose to believe

1. What levels of meaning can be found in Genesis 1.1-2.4a? Genesis 1.1-2.4a has several meanings; however, in religious context the meanings that are represented are open to interpretation. Since Genesis contains two creation stories, individuals reading may adapt better to one story versus the other.

Old Earth Creationism branches into different categories which are applicable to different religions; some of these being: Gap Creationism and Progressive Creationism. Gap Creationism focuses on early life and the processes that occurred, referring to Genesis and the belief that God created the Earth in 6 days. It has similarities with Young Earth Creationism, such as the "24-hour day" belief. Progressive Creationism centralizes on how life evolves today. This looks at the changing of a species from one era to the next.

This book has taught me far beyond what I expected, perhaps while reading this book I learned much more about the Genesis 1 account than I ever learned in my entire life. Miller and Soden might argue that my lack of study in this area is a result of being a group thinker rather than an individual thinker (30). Looking at both the Young Earth creationism (YEC) and the Old earth creationism (OEC) views for the first time, I realized that during my time at Moody Bible Institute I am really seeking to be challenged in my beliefs with by no means making it some kind of test for orthodoxy. Even though both the YEC and OEC views have strong arguments the aim of this essay is to demonstrate what I took away from this book which was written by two advocate of the OEC belief.

As Genesis is the first book of the bible and verses 1:1-2:3 are the first accounts, it is essential that the story that proceeds be examined. What is then discovered is another account about creation. This creation story is similar to the first account but it can be seen that God ‘is not working to a pre-planned strategy’ , this then ‘hints at a measure of vulnerability in the Creator’ in the second creation account which is a stark difference to the first story of creation where God is viewed as ‘is a king who does all things well: in his own judgement, it is 'very good'. He alone is responsible for creation: his voice alone is heard; he consults no one for wisdom or advice’ . Incorporating the world behind the text and the world of the text we are able to get a more cohesive experience about what the story is telling us, in this case what Genesis 1:1-2:3 is actually referring to. The tools used to analyse the text allows the audience to develop greater insight about the purpose of the text, it also allows the audience to change their previous viewpoint with integrated gained depth and

Chapter 1 where verses 1-5 can be found tells that God created the heavens, the earth, and everything that lives. These verses explain that God was the first and only creator. However Genesis later describes a lot more about the creation of the earth. After verses 1-5 in chapter 1 we learn that God continues creating by making humankind in his image and also giving them charge over the earth. We also learn that after the first day of creation in verses 1-5, God continues creating for a total of seven days. After God initially created the earth and light, God on the second day created the sky. On the third day, dry land was created. The fourth day he created the sun, moon, and stars. On the fifth day he created every living creature. The sixth day he made animals and human beings in his own image to commune with them. On the last day God rested and blessed it making his creation holy. At the end of Genesis chapter 1 God had created everything and it was perfect. I think that verses 1-5 fit perfectly with the rest of the chapter because they give a good insight was to how the chapter will continue. They also are very consistent in that they don’t make any drastic changes in the later verses. Verses 1-5 also contribute to the rest of the chapter by setting a starting point for what would be happening and how God would be acting. In this context, my interpretation of these passages helps me to

Properly dating the book of Genesis would allow us to build a timeline of creation which we can be used to trace back to day one of creation. However, this is extremely difficult to determine for two fundamental reasons: (1) the Bible provides no controllable statis- tical data that apply to the problem of absolute chronology; (2) most of the events took place in the preliterate period for which we have no extrabiblical written documents. (Ch. 1 Pg. 28)

Another possibility is that Genesis was also put in the Bible to show us how important the creation of man was. After all we are the only things that God created in his image (Gen 1:26). God makes a garden in Eden and puts Adam in the eastern part of Eden to care over and keep it in order. He then instructs him about what trees to eat from and which to not eat from. Before God makes him a helper (on the 6th day) he brings all the creatures to Adam to name all the animals and birds (Gen 2:15). Then God reflects back at what he previously made before man. (Gen 1:24-25 explains the creatures made from the earth “according to its kind”) and has Adam name them before he puts him asleep to operate on him to give him his wife

One major reason for the contrast in views is the difference of interpretations of the Bible. Extreme Christians take the story of Genesis purely literally and believe God created the world in six days, leaving no room for the arguments of science. Others still believe in the story of Genesis but that instead of six days, six periods of time. Others, however, completely reject Christianity.

Which is more viable, the theory that the planet humans live on is 4.6 billion years old and that everyone and everything in the world has evolved over all these years? Or is it the theory from the first book of the Bible, Genesis, that the almighty and powerful God created the heavens and the Earth over a course of six days and six nights? No one actually knows the answer because no person that is alive today was alive when the Earth was created. Although there has yet to be a definitive answer to this life long question, each side has evidence to support its claim. But, despite the towering amount of evidence that both sides have, one can not help but think that the correct answer comes from science.

Most arguments for the Genesis six day creation account stem from evidence against the Big Bang theory as the only two legitimate options for the origin of the universe are random choice or intelligent design. Therefore, anything that discredits the Big Bang model is building upon creationism. There have also been countless archaeological findings that support the relevance of the Bible. One example is that a number of Babylonian documents such as the Sumerian King List have been discovered that describe the same flood spoken of in Genesis Chapters 6-9. The Ark that Noah built and used

It is for this reason that the debate is also not between science and Christianity. Each advocate for each position is attempting to reconcile the apparent differences between science and Christianity. It is simply the case that they each take a different approach and give different amounts of authority to science and a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The “young earth creationist” perceptive is the result of a historical-grammatical reading of the description of the early Earth in the Bible or the Islamic Qur’an, which both contain similar accounts of a six-day creation, Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and Noah’s flood (Biblical

The story of creation and the fall of man are the mainly studied and more diligently and critically analyzed in the Bible. They are contained in the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis. The creation story is highly criticized in light of scientists and other non believers due the controversy that exist between science and religion. While science is subjective, Religion is objective and thus based on opinion. Nevertheless, the Bible appears more correct and truthful compared the evolution theories. There are more questions than answers in the revolution theory, for instance, how can a monkey turn into human being? And if that’s the case why aren’t the modern monkey turn into human beings? In that case, the Bible stands to be the better version in regard to the beginning of human race. I am a Christian, a fully devoted one, and my analysis of the creation story is based on the Bible, and more specifically, on the first three chapters of the book of Genesis as contained in the New International Version (NIV).