Six Days of Creation
How should Genesis 1 (the six days of creation) be interpreted?
I believe that the six days of creation should be viewed as a structure of the week.
There are some truths to the creation story but things did not develop the way that Genesis 1 says. plants animals and then yes humans but, what about dinosaurs, bacteria, viruses ect.
There is no place in the creation story for that. I believe that God spoke to the people of the day that wrote the bible in their language and those people did not know about dinosaurs, bacteria, viruses ect. so he did not put that into the story.
We have humans have gained knowledge over time and now we can say that all these things exist but the people of that time did not understand all of this so it was not mentioned.
We did evolve and it would have been too much for God to let the people of that time know that, because they would have been lost at evolution and not have gotten the concept at all. So in other words, God dumbed it down for the people of that time to understand.
This post was edited on: 2011-02-27 at 06:22 PM by: Jacquie Curtis (Moderator)
17 Replies
Genesis 1 answers the question of where did the heavens, earth and life come from. The first three days of creation God deals with the formation of the world by defining the boundaries of the earth. The last three days he fills the world with heavanly bodies and animals to resolve the initial emptiness.
Like I said in the atheists perspective question, you can never take what the Bible says literally. Rather, try and understand the big picture and what is being said. For example, in Genesis 1 it states that plants were made one day before the sun... but without sunlight, plants cannot reproduce. Another example is when it states "the waters above in the heavans" we all kmow that there is no water in the sky. It is referring to the blue sky and rain. At one point it states that the earth is flat, however we know that the earth is not flat due to scientific research. Again, at the time, God's purpose was to meet his authors and readers at the cognitive level that they were at and he acknowledged where their present understanding of the universe was. But now that we have scientific proof to prove otherweise, we must not take things literally. This is another reason why Christians may start to reconsider the coexistance of evolution and creation. Evolution has been proved in many ways and creation is based on our faith. Therefore, it makes sense that God created the earth along with evolution!
You say that you can't ever take the Bible literally. Isn't that cop out? Isn't that a way to simply make the Bible say what you want it to say? For instance, Jesus says some difficult things (eg, love you enemies). Can I just say that I shouldn't take this literally?
Well I guess to say "everything" shouldn't be taken literally was a bit of an overstatement and I should have clarified that the guidance from our pastors is what helps us properly understand the Bible. If we as believers all choose to interpret the Bible in our own way then that would cause confusion and wouldn't work very well. But all of my understandings of the Bible and realizations that scriptures are to be read as a "whole" rather than picking apart every aspect, came from listening to my priest. Their clarification makes me have a better understanding of the message that God is trying to get across.
jubb wrote:
Well I guess to say "everything" shouldn't be taken literally was a bit of an overstatement and I should have clarified that the guidance from our pastors is what helps us properly understand the Bible. If we as believers all choose to interpret the Bible in our own way then that would cause confusion and wouldn't work very well. But all of my understandings of the Bible and realizations that scriptures are to be read as a "whole" rather than picking apart every aspect, came from listening to my priest. Their clarification makes me have a better understanding of the message that God is trying to get across.
I agree with what you are saying here Jennifer! it is important we are aware of how to properly approach the Bible and what it is saying to us. It is easy to get caught up in literal interpretations, but it is important that we seperate the faith content from the insignificant side information or ancient science. In other words, we should focus on the message of faith or God's words in the Bible and not the small details in Genesis 1 and 2 that cause so much confusion and result in contradictions.
chorley wrote:
I agree with what you are saying here Jennifer! it is important we are aware of how to properly approach the Bible and what it is saying to us. It is easy to get caught up in literal interpretations, but it is important that we seperate the faith content from the insignificant side information or ancient science. In other words, we should focus on the message of faith or God's words in the Bible and not the small details in Genesis 1 and 2 that cause so much confusion and result in contradictions.
~~~~~~~~
I think we're on the same page, but just for the sake of argument... =)
I don't think that the ancient science or the literal details are "insignificant" necessarily Kayla.
I think that it is important to understand them *without* taking them literally. If we understand that the ancient writers of Genesis had their own scientific perspective that the Holy Spirit worked through in order to effectively communicate God's message, then we can understand that the message is what's important. But also, what we can take from this understanding of how Scripture was written, is that different parts of the Bible were written differently.
Parts of the Old Testament had been passed down orally for generations before they were written down, and as was the tradition, details were exaggerated on top of the ancient scientific perspective. To the people of this era, the details were less important, and the essence of the message were more important.
However, to answer Matt's question above, the accounts of Jesus were written by his direct followers, and if not his direct followers, then his disciples' disciples. These were the teachings that got Jesus crucified, and the fact that the passing on of these teachings was entirely illegal for the first three centuries of Christianity shows that they did not fluxuate to any significant degree. Furthermore, the creation accounts deal with both science and faith. Science is constantly evolving, and it is certainly reasonable to believe that the science 2-3000 years ago was not as advanced as it is today. But the faith aspect of Scripture (in both the Old and New Testament) is timeless, and has proven to be timeless throughout the 2000 years of Christianity.
This is a tough question and one that I’m not sure a consensus will ever be reached by Christians. I think there will always be those that interpret every word of the Bible literally and those that read the whole Bible with their focus only being place on Faith. If this is true I think that a more useful question to ask is are we ok with it being interpreted different ways? Paul states that divisions should never appear in the church and that our focus should always be on Christ. I think this statement has value and although I may be literally interpreting it, it might be beneficial to consider when discussing this question. If the focus of our belief is the same thing does the controversial interpretation really matter? Is it worth isolating believers over?
I don't think it matters how your interpret Genesis 1. I say this because it is not the "facts" of what was created first second or third that are important. In this case it is who created it that is important. Some might put their faith in that specific interpretation while others might not. I don't think it makes any difference whether the stars came first or the plants. I believe taht the authors of the Bible were trying to get to the point that God was ultimately the Creator.
It's interesting that as a religious community, you say we should focus on Christ as the center to our study and not neccessarily what is written. One of the most interesting things about scripture is the fact that they can be interpreted individually. Scripture, read under different emotional influence, will bring the reader different meaning each time. Not that what they read will change, but their perspective as well as what they find most important will.
Crowley wrote:
chorley wrote:
I don't think that the ancient science or the literal details are "insignificant" necessarily Kayla.
I think that it is important to understand them *without* taking them literally.
I absolutely agreee with what yo uare saying here Jesse. I suppose I went a little overboard when I said "insignificant", but I should clarify that what I meant was that we should not dwell on these details for the wrong reasons. Of course, wat you said is very true... We can certainly use these details to tell us about the time in which the author wrote the piece and other important information about the period.
Thanks for calling me out on that! I should have been a little more clear 
I love your take on this, Alaina. I am a "young earth creationist," someone who believes that the earth was created in six days, and I was beginning to feel a little alienated by some of these posts. I think that it's important to understand and think through the different positions on origins, but ultimately it's faith that unites us, not science.
Coming from an academic perspective, the six days creation story should be viewed and interpreted in the context of other creation accounts from other civilizations at the time. Genesis was written by a people in exile and therefore the text very much reflects the stage of religious development they were in. Genesis 1 was written to demonstrate the power of the Hebrew God over all life and all other gods worshipped by competing cultures.
Further, Genesis 1 was written in poetry, an easily memorized form, as a way to imprint the good of creation and the power of God on the hearts of the Hebrew people. Hence the repetition of "God created" and "it was good." As such, the author of Genesis 1 was thinking less about science and more about faith and worship. The world of fact did not exist as we know it from modern times and therefore it can't be imposed upon ancient texts.
As for a spiritual interpretation, I believe that the truth of Genesis 1 is just as applicable to us as it was to the original audience. God created a good thing, and he has power over all.
In this sense, my faith has been totally separated from my scientific understanding, in that the Hebrew Bible is not a modern science text book. It cannot be expected to relate scientific facts as we understand them, but it does truly communicate the power, plan and love of God for humanity.
Jacquie,
Nice use of the "accommodation" the Holy Spirit would have made for the people at that time to understand the message that God was revealing to the them in the Creation stories.
MattH,
You bring up a good point about it being a "cop out". As others point out we have to be careful how we interpret the bible. A multifaceted approach is best to avoid using the bible to make it say what you want, as you suggest.
Jesse Crowley, points out we need to look at everything in scripture as valuable and ask ourselves what importance/teaching does it contain for ourselves, past, present, and future.
kirsten-h wrote:
I love your take on this, Alaina. I am a "young earth creationist," someone who believes that the earth was created in six days, and I was beginning to feel a little alienated by some of these posts. I think that it's important to understand and think through the different positions on origins, but ultimately it's faith that unites us, not science.
Kirsten, I am happy that you took the courage to show your position on the matter and offer your thoughts.
If you are comfortable,
I am interested in hearing about how you felt after reading about the 5 basic theories in Lamoureux's book, esp. in regards to how he provides information, in his opinion, to pose the Young Earth Creationist Theory as not credible. Is that the first time you have heard such arguments? Does it change the way you feel about the creation and science.
Again, really proud and supportive of your opinion and ability to share it.
I agree that our faith unites us but is it a faith based on a loving relationship with God that we are living from? Or is it a faith based on ideas about how we, humans, factually propose that God choose to act in the world that defines how we relate to God? Both? Neither?
For example, when the Catholic Church finally admitted that Galileo was eventually right about the earth revolving around the sun, the church needed to re-evaluate how it interpreted scripture and eventually changed its position. Which I would say is for the better.
Im not trying to be confrontational or change how you feel I just want to hear how you feel and share what I think.
I have learned that Genesis 1 can be interpreted in many different ways. Some people take it literally how it is written in the bible, on each day that certain entity was created. But I have also recently learned a different perspective, the main purpose of Genesis 1 is to tell the people that “God created the universe and life, the world is a very good creation, men and women were made in the image of God” (I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution). Also the length of time in which the world was created, can stir up quite the debate. Was it really 6 days, or are those 6 days months, years, hundreds of years? I am still confused on this issue and I am trying to determine the answer for what I believe.
However I do agree with Jennifer that the bible should be read as one piece instead of individual parts.
I am starting to gain a real appreciation for the contrasting beliefs regarding the interpretation of the Genesis 1 and creation theories.
It brings me a sense of peace to see that people our age, as well as, younger and older are still trying to figure everything out.
In some ways I do not want to have the answer to this question, even if it were possible truly possible.
I think the journey of asking the question and exploring the many different answers is very rewarding.
I can agree with that Dan,
The Bible as we know is a composite of various writings including poetry, sonnets, short stories, ect... And like any writing (poetry especially) the Creation stories can be interpreted many different ways. It is interesting to see the different perspectives and in reading them I feel that we can enhance our own perspective.
scoco wrote:
However I do agree with Jennifer that the bible should be read as one piece instead of individual parts.
What exactly do you mean here by "one piece instead of individual parts?"
Though I fully believe that there is an overarching purpose and teaching to scripture as a whole and in smaller portions of the Bible, I think that to have a fuller understanding of that message we need to examine the smaller parts as pieces of the puzzle. Lhe larger picture is beautiful and the ultimate goal, but each piece is different and carries beauty and teaching in the detail.
Further, because of the diversity of authorship, geography and time in the writting of the Bible, I think that it must be taken as its parts to make an accurate interpetation. The context and intention of the writing differs from author to author and that context is extremely important in uderstanding the writing.
Daniel wrote: I think the journey of asking the question and exploring the many different answers is very rewarding.
I agree with what Daniel, this question is not one that necessarily needs to be answered, the process of pondering the question is the important part.
If I had to give a direct firm answer I would say the
Genesis accounts should not be taken literally. Also I feel that even though this topic is very significant to many individuals I do not think the answer is the significant part of the discussion. However, I'm not disregarding the importance it holds for many people.
Jennifer
Feb 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM