Banner Image: Sombrero Galaxy

Genesis Chapter 1

The pros and cons of four main explanations of Genesis Chapter 1

Genesis Chapter 1 is currently interpreted by four main theological ideas, each of which has its strengths and weaknesses. The leading interpretation for the past two thousand years has been traditional seven-day, young-earth creation theology. According to this belief, the heavens and earth were spoken into existence by God during a six-day period. God then rested on the seventh day. Using the genealogies given in the Old Testament, Anglican Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656) calculated a widely accepted creation date of 4004 BC.¹ During six days, God created the heavens, earth, and all therein.

1.0 Four main theological ideas        1.1 Young-earth theology        1.2 Gap theology        1.3 Day-age theology        1.4 Literary interpretations        1.5 Current status 2.0 Mosaic preamble translation 3.0 Summary 4.0 Alternate websites 5.0 References

In the eighteenth century, scientists began to seriously dispute Ussher's creation date as they discovered evidence to the contrary. Geologists came to realize that multilayered rock formations, fossilized remains, uplifted mountains, and severe erosion required extensive time to occur by natural means. As science continued to mature, more objective data became available. The Age of the Earth (1994) by G. Brent Dalrymple is a seminal book on the subject. In additional to isotope decay in igneous rocks discussed in Dalrymple's book, scientists have discovered evidence in starlight, Antarctic ice layers, lake sediment layers, tree-ring chronologies, and carbon-14 decay in organic matter that strongly support an earth age beyond 4004 BC and directly conflict with seven-day, young-earth creation theology.²

In an effort to resolve the conflict of scripture with scientific evidence of extensive age, other explanations have emerged for explaining Genesis Chapter 1. The four leading ideas are: (1) young-earth creation theology, (2) gap theology, (3) day-age theology, and (4) literary interpretations. All four theologies have their strengths and weaknesses.

Young-Earth Creation Theology

Traditional seven-day, young-earth creation theology is the oldest and most well-known explanation of biblical origins. Young-earth theology proposes that the heavens, earth, and its biosphere (all biological life and required environments) were created in six 24-hour days in the recent past around 4,000 BC. The Genesis Record (1976) by Henry Morris allows extending the creation date back to around 10,000 BC.³ Refuting Compromise (2004) by Jonathan Sarfati, gives a recent defense of traditional young-earth creation theology. As Sarfati points out, this was the primary teaching of the church until 1800⁴ and was accepted theology back to the time of Christ. This is not to say that everyone believed exactly the same, but the overwhelming majority accepted the basics of traditional seven-day, young-earth creation theology.

Some critics promote the notion that young-earth creation theology is a recent belief developed primarily by Seventh-day Adventist George McCrady Price, theologian John C. Whitcomb, and hydraulic engineer Henry Morris.⁵ Although these men have been influential in the resurgence of young-earth creation theology, as Sarfati clearly documents, this belief can be traced back to the New Testament period.

Young-earth creation theology has been the traditional belief of the Christian church for more than two thousand years. This theology is supported by a host of Bible translations and commentaries; however, Christian scientists, Christian educators, and theologians are perplexed about the conflict this theology has with firm scientific evidence for an old earth and universe. No good answer has emerged to resolve this issue. Many have come to regard this theology as anti-intellectual because of its conflict with science. Rejection of traditional young-earth creation theology in Christian academia is quite common.

In a more positive tone, promoters of young-earth creation theology have shown that Genesis Chapter 1 clearly teaches God as creator of the heavens, earth, and its biosphere. The six days of Genesis 1:3-31, consisting of evening and morning, are literal 24-hour days. God rested from his work on the seventh day. Advocates respect the Bible as truthful and trustworthy, and believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture.

Strengths:

1. In orthodox English translations, a first impression reading of Genesis Chapter 1 is that the heavens and earth were created in six 24-hour days.
2. The Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis is yom (Strong's 03117). When yom is used in the context of six consecutive, numbered, numerically increasing days—consisting of evening and morning—they are literal 24-hour days.
3. The Sabbath is codified in the Ten Commandments and defined in Exodus 20:8–11, Exodus 31:12–17, and Deut. 5:12–15 as a day of rest after six days of work. The Genesis creation account is used as an example. The work days are six literal days followed by a day of rest.
4. In orthodox English translations, the Old Testament genealogies of Genesis Chapters 5 and 11 appear to support a recent creation date. Anglican Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656) calculated a widely accepted creation date of 4004 BC.
5. God is creator of the heavens and earth. Proponents do not view naturalistic evolution as a significant constructive mechanism.
6. Proponents of young-earth creation theology steadfastly believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible is our only religious authority and the clear teaching of scripture must not be compromised.
7. Leading advocates of young-earth creation theology recognize the importance of the Genesis creation account and its influence on accepting the remainder of the Bible as true. They understand the significance of biblical origins.⁶

Objections:

1. Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are not easily integrated into the rigid six-day time frame of Genesis 1:3–31. These two verses are problematic.
2. The term "heaven" is treated as metaphorical in Genesis 1:1. As explained by Henry Morris, heaven is equivalent to "space." Initially space was empty until the fourth day.
3. The term "earth" is treated as metaphorical in Genesis 1:1–2. As Morris explains, earth does not refer to a physical planet but to the "component matter of the universe" or "basic matter."
4. The term "deep" is treated as metaphorical in Genesis 1:2 and refers to "the basic material elements sustained in a pervasive watery matrix throughout the darkness of space." Morris says, "Elements of matter and molecules of water were present, but not yet energized."⁷
5. The phrase "face (surface) of the waters" is treated as metaphorical in Genesis 1:2 and explained by Morris as, "The formless waters, like the formless earth, were essentially a 'presence' rather than a cohesive body."
6. Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 are treated as highly metaphorical and not a literal, straightforward reading of the text.
7. Genesis 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 have little or no chronological significance.
8. Within the six days of Genesis 1:3–31, no specific mention is made of God creating the earth as a planet.
9. When God speaks in the "command" verses of Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14–15, 20, and 24, no good explanation is given for the absent dynamic verbs "create, make, form, and build."
10. Creation of the sun on the fourth day is completely out of sequence. Logically, God would have created the sun on the first day to provide light and a large mass around which our planet could orbit. The creation of a temporary light for the first four days, and then its removal, is complete speculation.
11. The sequence of creating land plants in Genesis 1:9–12 followed by marine life in Genesis 1:20–21 disagrees with scientific evidence for the appearance of life on earth. Life first appeared in the oceans and then on land.
12. Within the last two hundred years scientists have discovered significant evidence supporting an old age for the heavens, earth, and its biosphere—much older than a 4004 BC creation date. Evidence of significant time has accumulated to the point it will never be overturned. Ignoring this evidence is not a viable option.
13. Apparent age (the idea that God created things with an appearance of old age, even though they are quite young) cannot legitimately be used to explain away evidence of significant time. This argument makes God a great deceiver and places Bible believers in an indefensible intellectual position.
14. Fossil evidence conclusively proves animals lived and died before the appearance of mankind on earth. This contradicts belief that no animal death occurred before the fall of man based on young-earth interpretations of Genesis 3:14, 17 and Romans 8:19-21. Although Genesis and Romans discuss the death of man due to his sin, they do not specifically mention animal death or that animals were punished for Adam's sin.
15. Supporters of this theology do not acknowledge the embellished interpretation and mistranslation of key words in Genesis Chapter 1, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Jeremiah 3:17, and Jeremiah 4:23 found in orthodox English Bibles.
16. Advocates of this theology fully support the traditional, embellished interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3.

Gap Theology

Gap theology was among the first alternate explanations to traditional young-earth creation theology and was developed to harmonize orthodox translations of the Bible with scientific evidence regarding significant time. Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847), founder of the Free Church of Scotland, brought gap theology into prominence through his preaching.⁸ Earth's Earliest Ages (1884) by George H. Pember defends gap theology. The Scofield Reference Bible (1917) promotes this theology in its explanatory notes of Genesis. Without Form and Void (1970) by Arthur C. Custance promotes gap theology through an in-depth analysis of the word "was" (the Hebrew word "be") in Genesis 1:2.

Gap theology proposes that millions of years occurred between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. During this time, dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals lived, hydrocarbon reserves were formed, the fossil record was laid down, sediment layers accumulated, and geologic change occurred. According to Donald G. Barnhouse, the earth was then ruined by God when Lucifer rebelled. Genesis 1:2 is translated to say, "And the earth became without form and empty."⁹ Earth was subsequently reformed and repopulated during six days of creation.

Gap theology is a knee-jerk reaction by theologians who failed to consider the full implications of their idea. To begin with, the translation of Genesis 1:2 is flawed. The stative word "be" is forced to become a dynamic word. Secondly, although allowing significant time to occur between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 may be reasonable, gap theology creates a new problem by proposing the complete destruction of earth's surface and biosphere within the recent geologic past. Scientific evidence does not support the complete destruction and reconstruction of earth 6,000 years ago.

On a positive note, promoters of gap theology have shown that Genesis 1:1-2 lie outside the rigid six-day time frame of Genesis 1:3-31. The first three verses of Genesis Chapter 1 occur in chronological order and the time between them is not defined in scripture. In general, advocates respect the Bible as truthful and trustworthy, and believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture.

Strengths:

1. Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 lie outside the rigid six-day time frame of Genesis 1:3–31.
2. Genesis 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 occur in a chronological sequence.
3. In scripture, time is undefined between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Millions of years are allowed between these two verses to harmonize with scientific evidence in support of significant time.
4. The six days described in Genesis 1:3-31 are literal 24-hour days.
5. God is creator of the heavens and earth. Proponents do not view naturalistic evolution as a significant constructive mechanism.
6. Advocates of gap theology recognize the importance of harmonizing the Bible with firm scientific evidence in support of significant time. Ignoring this evidence is not an option.

Objections:

1. Gap theology requires the mistranslation of "was" as "became" to indicate change in Genesis 1:2. The Hebrew verb hayh, a stative, state-of-being verb, is interpreted as a dynamic verb to indicate action.
2. This theology relies on mistranslation of the Hebrew words tohu and bohu in Genesis 1:2. These two rhyming words have essentially the same meaning and are best translated "vacant and empty" or "vacant and void" to indicate the complete absence of life on earth. Proponents of gap theology translate this expression as "without form and empty" or "ruin and desolation."
3. This theology requires the Hebrew verb "male" in Genesis 1:22 and 1:28 to be translated "refill" rather than "fill" to indicate God's desire for the earth to be repopulated.
4. Creation of the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day is completely out of sequence and not satisfactorily explained.
5. Destruction of the earth to where it was "without form" in Genesis 1:2, followed by the creation of new continents and oceans on the third day in Genesis 1:9 conflicts with science. Scientific evidence does not support the recent formation (i.e., 6,000 years ago) of earth's continents and oceans.
6. Geology and paleontology do not support an event within the recent past (i.e., 6,000 years ago) that destroyed all life on earth. Scientific evidence does not support the complete annihilation and then reappearance of animal and plant species within recent history.
7. Supporters of this theology do not acknowledge the embellished interpretation and mistranslation of key words in Genesis Chapter 1, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Jeremiah 3:17, and Jeremiah 4:23 found in orthodox English Bibles.
8. Advocates of this theology support the traditional, embellished interpretation of Genesis 1:3–2:3.

Day-Age Theology

Day-age theology is a second idea developed to harmonize traditional translations of the Bible with scientific evidence regarding significant time. Prior to 1800, Thomas Burnet, William Whiston, and Hermann Venema separately proposed that the six days of Genesis were long periods of time. The Six Days of Creation (1855) by Professor Tayler Lewis of the Reformed Church of America advocated long ages of time. Creation and the Fall: A Defence and Exposition of the First Three Chapters of Genesis (1856) by Donald MacDonald, a minister of the Free Church of Scotland, advocated long ages for each day. Princeton theologians Charles Hodge, Archibald A. Hodge, and Benjamin Warfield supported a day-age approach.¹⁰

Day-age theology proposes that each day of the Genesis creation account was millions of years long and the days may have overlapped. A Matter of Days (2004) by Hugh Ross discusses day-age theology and its connection with time, natural cause, and evolution. Accepting each day as millions of years relegates significant portions of the Genesis creation story to a metaphorical explanation. This idea is a brute-force, frontal assault on the clear language of six days described in Genesis 1:3–31. Significant time is forced into the text contrary to scripture. Rather than an interpretation, this theology is best viewed as a speculative idea.

In a positive vein, promoters of day-age theology point out that the genealogies in Genesis Chapters 5 and 11 do not require a direct father-to-son relationship and are best viewed as a male-to-descendant relationship. The Genesis genealogies are abbreviated and insignificant patriarchs were left out. This permits moving the appearance of anatomically modern man backward in time beyond 4004 BC. In general, advocates say they believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture.

Strengths:

1. Heaven and earth in Genesis 1:1–2 are treated as literal. Heaven is comprised of space, stars, galaxies, solar systems, comets, and other objects known to science. Earth refers to our planet with its current size, spherical shape, and mass.
2. The genealogies in Genesis Chapters 5 and 11 do not require a direct father–to–son relationship and are best viewed as a male–to–descendant relationship. Gaps in the Genesis genealogies permit extending the appearance of anatomically modern man backward in time beyond 4004 BC.
3. Proponents recognize that animals lived and died on earth before mankind appeared based on scientific evidence. The Bible does not teach no-animal-death before Adam's sin. According to Genesis 3:14–17, the serpent, Eve, and Adam are the only ones specifically mentioned as being punished (not all animals on earth). Romans 5:12 and 8:19–22 do not specifically discuss animals and animal death.
4. Advocates of day–age theology recognize the importance of harmonizing the Bible with firm scientific evidence in support of significant time and the sequencing of past events. Ignoring this evidence is not an option.

Objections:

1. Day-age theology does not provide a satisfactory explanation for treating the six days described in Genesis 1:3–31 as long epochs of time. Significant time is forced into the text. Harmony with scientific evidence is at the expense of scripture.
2. The Hebrew word translated "day" in Genesis is yom. When yom is used in the context of six consecutive, numbered, numerically increasing days, consisting of evening and morning, they are literal 24-hour days. Context does not allow yom to be interpreted as millions of years.
3. Each of the six days in the creation narrative contain evening and morning. The overlap of days is not supported by the biblical text.
4. Genesis 2:1–3 does not close with the phrase, "And the evening and the morning were the seventh day." Some proponents believe God did not end the seventh day and is currently resting. If the seventh day can be thousands of years long, then the six work days can be millions of years long¹¹. This is not a rational conclusion.
5. Supporters say the earth was covered by clouds for millions of years during the first three days. The sun, moon, and stars were hidden and became visible on the fourth day. This is not a credible explanation.
6. According to scientific evidence, life appeared first in the oceans and then on land. This disagrees with the creation of trees and plants on the third day (Gen. 1:9–12) followed by marine life on the fifth day (Gen. 1:20-21). The overlapping of days does not solve this sequence problem.
7. The Sabbath is defined as a day of rest after six days of work. Exodus 20:11 and 31:17 specifically mention the six days of Genesis as an example. No satisfactory explanation is given for these verses.
8. Advocates of this theology do not acknowledge the embellished interpretation or mistranslation of key words in Genesis Chapter 1, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Jeremiah 3:17, and Jeremiah 4:23 found in orthodox English Bibles.
9. Proponents of this theology have replaced the traditional, embellished interpretation of Genesis 1:3–2:3 with a private interpretation not supported by the biblical text.

Literary Interpretations of Genesis 1

The analogical day is a literary interpretation of Genesis developed to eliminate disagreement of the Bible with scientific evidence regarding significant time and the sequencing of past events. Genesis 1 – 4: A Linguistic, Literary and Theological Commentary by C. John Collins (2006) explains analogical days as "God's workdays, their length is neither specified nor important, and not everything in the account needs to be taken as historically sequential."¹²

Analogical days are quite similar to day-age theology, which proposes the days are millions of years long. As an additional feature, analogical days allow the sequence of days to be rearranged. The highly structured, clear language of six, literal, sequential days is dismissed.

On the positive side, Collins' discussion of the Genesis creation account contributes to a better understanding of scripture. Genesis 1:1–2 lie outside the rigid six-day time frame. Genesis 1:1 is a general statement attributing God as creator of the heavens and earth. Genesis 1:2 describes the earth at some time in the distant past after its creation. Genesis 1:1–3 occur in chronological order and the time between each verse is not defined. Genesis 2:5 applies to a land that was dry and barren where the garden was to be planted, rather than the entire earth.

Strengths:

1. Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 lie outside the rigid six-day time frame of Genesis 1:3–31.¹³
2. Genesis 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 occur in chronological order.¹⁴
3. Genesis 1:2 is a description of earth before the creation week began.¹⁵
4. Genesis 2:5 is interpreted as applying to a land that was dry and barren where the garden was to be planted, rather than the entire earth.¹⁶
5. Advocates of this theology recognize the importance of harmonizing the Bible with firm scientific evidence in support of significant time and the sequencing of past events. Ignoring this evidence is not an option.

Objections:

1. This theology does not provide a satisfactory explanation for treating the six days described in Genesis 1:3–31 as long epochs of time. Harmony with scientific evidence is at the expense of scripture.
2. When yom is used in the context of six consecutive, numbered, numerically increasing days—consisting of evening and morning—they are literal 24-hour days. Context does not suggest a metaphorical explanation.
3. The credibility of Genesis 1:3–31 as a plausible story of origins is destroyed by allowing the six days to be millions of years, the days to overlap, and the order of days to be rearranged.
4. Supporters of this theology do not acknowledge the embellished interpretation or mistranslation of key words in Genesis Chapter 1, Exodus 20:11, Exodus 31:17, Jeremiah 3:17, and Jeremiah 4:23 found in orthodox English Bibles.
5. Advocates of this theology have replaced the traditional, embellished interpretation of Genesis 1:3–2:3 with a private interpretation not supported by the biblical text.

The framework view is another well-known literary interpretation of the Genesis creation story. Professor Arie Noordzij of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands is typically credited as the first person to teach the framework view. Genesis: A Commentary (2001) by Bruce Waltke and Cathi J. Fredricks explains the framework view from an American perspective. Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (2006) by Meredith G. Kline is another explanation of the framework view. As described by John Collins, the framework view is "a literary framework for us to understand the work of creation, without committing anyone to see the days as either sequential or normal."¹⁵ The framework view treats the Genesis creation account as completely metaphorical. While this approach eliminates any conflict with evidence-based science, acceptance comes at the direct expense of scripture. Such an interpretation leads one to question God's knowledge of origins and his ability to inspire the writing of a credible account.

Current Status

In addition to the above four main theological views about Genesis Chapter 1, a number of other ideas have emerged. Some believe Genesis 1 is just another creation myth. The Bible creation account is equated with other false or fanciful stories found in present-day African, Asian, Native American Indian, South American, and European cultures. From a historical perspective, some equate the Genesis creation narrative to ancient pagan mythology found in Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, and Canaanite creation stories.

All of the above explanations of Genesis have major scriptural and scientific problems, and indicate the chaotic condition of current biblical-based origins belief. Supporters of the above theologies fail to properly interpret the biblical text and/or accept firm scientific evidence about earth's history. All of the above explanations of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 are analogous to driving a square peg into a round hole—the pieces do not fit.

The Bible creation story is comprised primarily of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. Although other minor references to the creation narrative occur in scripture, Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 form the theological and historical basis of the biblical creation account. Within the past two hundred years, the Genesis creation story has increasingly become a major source of controversy within Judeo-Christian belief primarily due to scientific evidence that supports an old earth and universe.

Current English translations of Genesis Chapter 1 contain serious errors. Key words in Genesis Chapter 1 have been egregiously misinterpreted, mistranslated, or added in all present-day orthodox English Bibles. Explanations of Genesis are tradition bound and theologically driven, rather than by sound interpretative practices. A careful reading of the Hebrew text clearly shows Genesis 1 has been misinterpreted to support traditional seven-day, young-earth creation theology, resulting in the current conflict with science regarding extensive time.

Mosaic Preamble Translation

Genesis Chapter 1 is best viewed as a Mosaic preamble. Moses wrote Genesis 1 as a preamble (introduction) to the Pentateuch to establish God as an all-powerful creator of the heavens, earth, and all therein. A second purpose was to support observance of the Sabbath. Moses structured most of the preamble in a seven-day format to support Sabbath observance. There is no record of Sabbath observance by Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, or the children of Israel until introduced by Moses. This was a new commandment that significantly affected their lives. Reading Genesis 1 is recommended before continuing.

The Mosaic preamble translation recognizes that God has full knowledge of the history of the heavens and the earth. He was fully capable of inspiring Moses to write of a truthful and trustworthy introduction to the Pentateuch that would endure the test of time. Strictly speaking, Genesis Chapter 1 (Gen. 1:1-2:3, the Mosaic preamble) is neutral on the subject of an old earth or young earth—and other information must be used to arrive at a conclusion. When properly interpreted special revelation (God's word, the Bible) will not conflict with general revelation (God's creation, the physical world). God is not a deceiver, nor does he make mistakes.

The Mosaic preamble translation began as an in-depth study of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 found in the Biblia Hebraica (Hebrew Bible). The end result is the Mosaic preamble translation of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2. The Real Genesis Creation Story by J. Gene White details how this translation came about and represents a significant advance in understanding Genesis.

Strengths:

1. Moses is author (responsible for compiling, organizing, writing, editing, and copying) of the Pentateuch and can be plausibly identified as the writer of Genesis Chapter 1.
2. Genesis Chapter 1 clearly identifies God as creator of the heavens and earth and all therein; however, no time, timeframe, specific methodology, or creative sequence are given.
3. Genesis Chapter 1 does not conflict with the firm evidence of science in regard to significant time (an old heaven and earth) or the sequence of past events.
4. The interpretation/translation of all key words in Genesis Chapter 1 are well-supported by the remainder of the Old Testament.
5. No unique interpretations, special rules of grammar, or forced word definitions applicable only to Genesis Chapter 1 are required.
6. Not a single word, phrase, or verse in Genesis Chapter 1 is treated as metaphorical, mythological, or untrue.
7. No speculative or ad hoc explanations are necessary. For example, some interpretations of Genesis 1:1 require the term "earth" to be other than a physical planet, in Genesis 1:2 the term "deep" is metaphorical, in Genesis 1:3 a "special" light was created for the first three days, each day was "millions" of years long, the six days over lapped, etc.
8. Genesis 1:1–2 lie outside the rigid six-day time frame described in Genesis 1:3‒31. Scripture does not define time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, or between Genesis 1:2 and 1:3.
9. Genesis 1:1–3 occur in chronological order.
10. In Genesis 1:1–2 the terms "heaven" and "earth" are literal. Heaven is comprised of space, stars, galaxies, solar systems, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, and other objects as viewed from an earth perspective. Earth refers to our planet with its current size, spherical shape, and mass.
11. In Genesis 1:2 the term "deep" is literal and consistent with its usage in the remainder of the Old Testament in reference to the "waters of the deep."
12. In Genesis 1:3–2:3, yom (Strong's 03117) refers to a literal day. When yom is used in the context of seven numbered, numerically increasing days, which include evening and morning, they are literal 24-hour days.
13. In Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17 asah (Strong's 06213) can be legitimately translated "did" rather than "made" to indicate the wide variety of work God "did" in Genesis Chapter 1. The work God did includes describing, naming, approving, distinguishing, and blessing a mature, well-functioning earth and biosphere.
14. In Genesis 1:9 and Jeremiah 3:17, qavah (Strong's 06960) can be properly translated "wait".
15. In Genesis 1:2 and Jeremiah 4:23, tohu (Strong's 08414) can be properly translated "vacant".
16. The genealogies given in Genesis Chapters 5 and 11 do not require a direct father-to-son relationship and are best explained as a male-to-descendant relationship. Gaps in these genealogies allow extending the appearance of man "made in the image of God" backward in time.
17. Genesis 1 is significant, and a correct interpretation is important. Our view of biblical origins has a substantial influence on accepting the Bible as true.
18. Christians cannot ignore firm scientific evidence in support of extensive time.
19. Intelligent cause and non-intelligent cause (natural cause) are a valid dichotomy in the scientific study of origins.
20. Some Christian ministries have equated millions of years with naturalistic evolution. If the earth is millions of years old, then naturalistic evolution must be true. This reasoning can be rejected.
21. Extensive time (millions of years) is not a magic wand capable of endowing natural cause with sophisticated constructive ability. Christians must reject the equivalent of naturalistic miracles.
22. Naturalistic evolution (random, undirected, purposeless, natural change) has not shown itself to be a significant constructive mechanism.
23. Natural cause has not demonstrated the ability to create design information, build complex functional structures, adjust multiple variables to fine-tune a system, or construct mathematically improbable objects of any significance.

Objections

1. The emotional objections to the Mosaic preamble translation are monumental. Most Christians are comfortable with traditional seven-day, young-earth creation theology.
2. Christians have been misled about Genesis Chapter 1. A serious and embarrassing mistake few want to admit.
3. Acceptance of young-earth theology has become a litmus test for conservative Christian belief.

Summary

Traditional young-earth creation theology has been the dominant teaching of the church for the past two-thousand years. Within the last two-hundred years evidence for an old earth and universe has been discovered which directly clashes with this belief. This evidence has grown to the point it cannot be ignored. Gap theology, day-age theology, and literary interpretations were developed in an effort to harmonize the Bible with scientific evidence in support of significant time. Unfortunately, these three ideas also have significant problems that cannot be ignored.

The Mosaic preamble translation is the first explanation that has taken an in-depth look at the words and grammar of Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 based on the Hebrew text. This translation is textual driven rather than theologically driven. The Mosaic preamble translation has many strengths and is a highly plausible interpretation/translation based on the Hebrew text. The Mosaic preamble translation can be harmonized with scientific evidence for an old earth and universe.

TO LEARN MORE

The above is a small sampling of material found in The Real Genesis Creation Story by J. Gene White. Visit the author's website to see how this book came about. For your personal copy of this explosive book, click to order from AMAZON or BARNES & NOBLE. The suggested retail price is $15.95.

References:
1. Ussher, James (1658). The Annals of the World. (Ussher's timeline chart by Paul Hansen, published in Creation, Sept. 2005). Retrieved on March 3, 2006 from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i4/TimelineOfTheBible.pdf
2. White, J. Gene (2016) The Real Genesis Creation Story—Third Edition, St. Louis, MO: Sunnybrooke Publications. pp 35-62.
3. Morris, Henry (1976). The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. p45.
4. Sarfati, Jonathan (2004). Refuting Compromise. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. pp120-137.
5. Ruse, Michael (Oct. 29, 2007). Creationism, Philpapers, Online Research in Philosophy. Retrieved on December 29, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/
6. Morris, Henry M. (1976). The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. pp17, 22.
7. Ibid. p41,49-51.
8. Batten, Don, ed. and Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland (1990). The Revised and Expanded Answers Book, 24th printing. Green Forest, AR: Master Books. p58.
9. Rhodes, Ron (2004). The 10 Things You Should Know About the Creation vs. Evolution Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers. p49.
10. Duncan, Samuel J., Chairman (2000). What is the Day-Age Interpretation? Report of the Creation Study Committee. Presbyterian Church in America. Retrieved on October 21, 2009 from http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html
11. Ross, Hugh (2004). A Matter of Days. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress. pp81-82.
12. Collins, C. John (2006). Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P and R Publishing Co. p124.
13. Ibid. p78.
14. Ibid. p77-78.
15. Ibid. p78.
15. Ibid. p126.