Different interpretations of

Genesis
 Different interpretations of the
Creation story
• There are three main ways of
interpreting Genesis 1–3.
• These interpretations are
sometimes categorised
as literalist,
• conservative
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC

• and liberal.

20XX presentation title 2

 • Some Christians are literalists.
• This means they believe the Bible
is the actual word of God.
• They also believe that Genesis 1
and 2 are true and accurate
descriptions of how the world was
created and should be taken This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

literally.
• Literalists reject scientific theories
such as the Big
Bang and evolution
20XX presentation title 3
 • Some Christians are conservatives.
• This means they do not think the Bible
was actually written by God – instead,
they believe that the writers of the
Bible were inspired by God’s actions.
• They interpret Genesis 1 as fact but
believe each day was actually an era
that lasted millions or billions of
years.
• They might see Genesis 2 and 3 as a
poetic explanation of how evil came This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

into the world.

20XX presentation title 4
 • Some Christians are liberals who interpret the
Bible metaphorically.
• They accept that the Bible will have
contradictions within it, as it was written by
humans and so is imperfect.
• These Christians will accept scientific theories
about the origins of the universe, such as the
Big Bang theory.
• What is important for these Christians, is the
message of the Genesis account of creation,
which is that God created the world, and gave
humans a special role, status and purpose in it.

20XX presentation title 5

 Other “Interpretations” of Genesis
• The Gap Theory
• This was the first attempt to harmonize the
biblical account of creation with the idea of vast
ages.
• It claims that a huge time gap (perhaps several
billion years) exists between Genesis 1:1 and
Genesis 1:2.
• In the most popular “ruin-and-reconstruction”
version, it is said that during this time Satan
rebelled and led creation in rebellion against
God.
• As a result, God destroyed this
original creation with the flood of Lucifer.
• Gap theorists believe that Genesis 1:2 describes
the conditions of the world following this flood.
20XX presentation title
• A young Presbyterian minister, Thomas
Chalmers, began to preach this idea in 1804.
• In 1814, he published this idea and the gap
theory began to enjoy a great deal of
acceptance in the Church.
• Gap theorists often argue that the word
translated as “was” in most English versions
of Genesis 1:2 should actually be translated
“became” as in “the Earth became formless
and void.”
• However, this is unwarranted by context. The
gap theory suffers from a number of
hermeneutical problems.
6
 • First, time cannot be inserted
between Genesis 1:1 and
Genesis 1:2 because verse 2 does
not follow verse 1 in time.
• verse 2 is describing the
conditions of the earth when it
was first created.
• Hebrew grammar does not allow
for the insertion of vast periods of
time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2
.
20XX presentation title
• Third, most versions of the gap
theory put death and suffering
long before Adam’s sin.
• So the gap theory suffers from
many of the same doctrinal
problems as the day-age view.
• For a full refutation of the gap
theory, please read Unformed
and Unfilled by Weston W.
Fields.1
7
 • Theistic Evolution
• This view claims that God used evolution
as a means of bringing about
His creation.
• Conservative Christians typically reject
this idea because it attacks the idea that
Adam was made in the image of God and
from the dust of the earth.
• Instead, he and Eve simply evolved from
apelike creatures.
• Many liberal scholars accept this view
and see no problem with incorporating
evolutionary principles into the Bible.
20XX presentation title
• Theistic evolution impugns the
character of God by blaming Him
for millions of years of death,
bloodshed, disease, and suffering.
• A world with these things in it
could hardly be called “very
good.”
• As with day-age and gap
theories, theistic evolution is not
supported by Scripture, and has
numerous doctrinal problems.
8
 • The Day-Age Theory
• This view is appropriately named. Its proponents
claim that each of the days of creation was an
extremely long period of time. In support of this view,
they usually quote Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8, which
state “one day is as a thousand years.”
• The problem with citing these verses is that they are
not even referring to creation.
• The problem with citing these verses is that they are
not even referring to creation.
• The passage in 2 Peter, for example, is referring to the
Second Coming.
• These verses are simply teaching that God is not
limited by time.
• He is beyond the confines of His creation, not bound
by it.
20XX presentation title
• The day-age theory became popular after George Stanley
Faber, a respected Anglican bishop, began to teach it in
1823.
• For the past two centuries, this view has been tweaked to
accommodate changing scientific beliefs.
• Some day-age proponents believe in theistic evolution;
others believe in “progressive creation” as described
below.
• The day-age view is based on a hermeneutical error called
an “unwarranted expansion of an expanded semantic
field.”
• In other words, it is assumed that because the Hebrew
word for “day” can mean “time” (in a general sense) in
some contexts, then it is permissible to interpret it to mean
“time” in Genesis 1.
• However, as we’ve shown in this book, the context of
Genesis 1 does not allow for such a possibility.
9
 • Progressive Creation
• This version of old-earth creationism is probably
the most popular of the compromise views in
the Church today.
• Most progressive creationists are also day-age
supporters; they believe that each of
the creation days was a long period of time.
• However, rather than accepting
biological evolution, progressive creationists
believe that God created in stages over many
millions of years.
• They believe that God created certain animals
millions of years ago and then they died out.
• Then God created more animals that died out.
Eventually, He got around to making humans.
20XX presentation title
• Although many progressive creationists reject
biological evolution, they generally accept
astronomical and geological evolution.
• Like theistic evolutionists, progressive
creationists believe in millions of years of
death, disease, suffering, and bloodshed
before Adam’s sin.
• Such positions inevitably undermine the
Gospel message.
10
 • The framework hypothesis] takes the
Genesis account of Creation as a
theological framework rather than a
strictly historical, chronological account.
• It is important to note that proponents of
the framework view do not deny that the
people and events alluded to in the
Creation account are essentially historical.
• It should be obvious, however, that in
denying the historical and chronological
nature of the account, they have very little
basis for this acceptance.

20XX presentation title 11

 • Other Views
• There have been other attempts to
synchronize the Bible’s account of creation
with the evolutionary viewpoint.
• Two of these views have diminished in
popularity in the past few decades.
• The revelatory day view states that God
gave Moses a series of visions of His
creative work.
• These visions lasted for six days.
• The obvious problem with this view is that
there is absolutely no scriptural support for
it
20XX presentation title
• . The Bible never even hints that this
may have been the case, so it is
based on a lack of evidence. The
other view is called the literal-day-
with-gaps.
• This view states that each of the
days of creation was a literal day,
but there were huge gaps of time in
between each day.
• This view suffers from many of the
same problems as the day-age theory
and the gap theory.
12