Expert: Rev. Stuart Woodward - 10/21/2011

Question
QUESTION: Hi,

I am a born again Christian who attends a Baptist Church. I have been born again for about 8 or 9 years. For a while I believed in the literal interpretation of Genesis, but about 2 years ago I met a born again Christian who was a evolutionary biologist. He told me in all honesty that it is impossible for the human genome to have come from 8 people who survived a flood as recently as 5,000 years ago. There is just too much diversity in the human genome for that to be the case. He also told me that it is impossible for animals to have come from only 2 or 7 ancestors who survived that same flood only 5,000 years ago. So if the Bible is inerrant truth, and science is true as well, it must be our interpretation of scripture that is lacking.

I came up with this interpretation recently. Please read the whole thing and tell me what you think as a minister of the gospel. You don't have to agree with it, just be sure to read it all. I don't like it when people don't read something entirely and then comment on it. Thanks!!!

I was reading the first chapter of the book of Genesis recently and I noticed some things. God first creates light and calls it day and the dark he calls night, on the first day. Then on the 3rd day he creates plants. Yet it isn’t till the 4th day that God creates the Sun, the moon, and the stars. When creating the stars you’d think it would be more complicated then just creating the earth, which is one tiny planet in a sea of other planets and stars. By saying that God created the stars one would think that it means that he created the other planets and stars all on the 3rd day. So why is the earth so complicated to create, while the other heavenly bodies don’t appear to be. And how can vegetation be created before the sun?

Also sea creatures are created on the 5th day. Along with the sea creatures He created the birds, but the other land animals He created on the 6th day. Which makes little sense. The modern day belief is that birds evolved from dinosaurs which were first land animals, and therefore would have come before the birds. But this is all looking at Genesis chapter 1 as if it is a science book that is supposed to give scientific answers. Genesis chapter 1 is Hebrew poetry. It is part of what is called poetic Biblical genre. It’s not meant to be taken literally, but figuratively to point out certain spiritual truths, and not to give scientific answers.

When we look at Genesis 1 we see the 6 days of creation divided into two parts. In the first three days God creates the basic framework, and the next three days he fills in the details. Light is created on the first day. The sky and the seas and the dry land are created on the second day. And the vegetation is created on the 3rd day. That’s the basic framework of the earth. Then the gaps are filled in over the next 3 days. The 4th day corresponds to the first day. On the first day light is created and so is day and night. But then on the 4th day the Sun, moon and stars which populate the day and night are created. Therefore the framework of the first day is completed on the 4th day. On the 2nd day God creates the sky and the sea and the dry land. Those are the basics. But the gaps left behind from that are finished on the 5th day with the creation of sea creatures to populate the seas, and birds to populate the sky. And so the 5th day corresponds to the 2nd day. On the 3rd day God creates vegetation. But those living beings which eat the vegetation are created on the 6th day. Finally on the 6th day God creates the pinnacle of His creation. Mankind. Whom He makes in His own divine image. That doesn’t mean that Man looks like God, but that man has certain divine characteristics. And that man is the greatest of all his creations.

Genesis Chapter 1 is also figuratively placed in the framework of a work week, with the final day being a day of rest. So God is the architect, and the builder who creates the universe just men are workers to work on the earth as His stewards. Men work 6 days a week, in an orderly fashion, and rest on the 7th day. The narrative makes it looks like God created the universe in the same way that a man builds a house. First he puts down the foundation and the framework, then he fills in the gaps. The foundation and framework are done in the first 3 days, and the gaps are filled in in the last 3 days.

What is it that Genesis teaches from a spiritual perspective? God created the universe out of nothing. And God created the universe. The universe did not create God. In many of the pagan stories of that time the various pagan gods came out of the primordial chaos of the universe. In many pagan stories the universe started out as chaos and then settled into order, and out of that order came the gods. This is not so in the Hebrew narrative.

Also God creates the universe in an orderly fashion. As a man who builds a house in an orderly fashion, first building the framework, and then filling in the gaps. So did God also create the universe in an orderly fashion. In stages, so to speak. Nice, and neat, and orderly. Not in a chaotic fashion. This is in opposition to many of the pagan stories of the time period that Genesis was written.

Finally we see that God builds in a regular work week and rests on the Sabbath day. This is not a literal work week. This is put in the narrative for symbolic reasons. To show how God worked, and to show mankind that he is to work and finally to rest. God blesses the Sabbath day. To the Hebrews of the time, who had just left the bondage of slavery, the Sabbath day was very important. This story shows how important the Sabbath day is. Even God rested from his toil of creation on the Sabbath day, and blessed it.  

Much of this is a symbolic and figurative story of creation, that holds many truths and lessons within it. It is not a science book. It is a story that shows how loving and caring God is with His creation. And it shows that He is the creator, ruler and master of the universe, because He made all things, and was not Himself made or created.  The 6 days of creation, and the 7th day on which God rested are put into the story for symbolic reasons. The whole story is placed in the framework of a regular work week. This is not to prove that the universe was created in 6 literal 24 hour days. Earth is a tiny insignificant planet in a great sea of heavenly bodies. The idea that God would center His universal creating activity on how long it took this one planet to revolve around itself seems a bit silly. And actually the earth doesn’t revolve around itself in 24 hours, but in 23 hours and 56 minutes. As it says in the New Testament, to God a thousand years is like a day. So why be so literal in the interpretation of Genesis 1?

This story of creation never deals with the age of the earth. That is not its intention. It does not seek to give a science lesson. It seeks to show who God is, it shows how God created all things in an orderly fashion, and who man is in relation to God. In this process it contradicts many pagan creation stories. But just because I am saying that the story of creation as found in Genesis 1 is not a literal story, does not make its truths any less real. Jesus told many parables in the New Testament. Like the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. This parable cannot be taken literally, because in it the rich man speaks of having a tongue on which he’d like some water. But how can this man’s soul have a tongue? The parable is not to be taken in a literal sense, but the truths it conveys are true nonetheless. Also Jesus said that the bread and the wine at the last supper were His body and blood. But no fundamentalist preacher would ever take that literally. And so likewise, in the story of creation, as described in Genesis 1, we have a story that is not meant to be taken literally. But that does not mean that it does not convey God’s inerrant truth. Truth about Himself, about how He created the earth, and how He views mankind.

I believe that God created life on earth by means of evolution. But I believe in God directed evolution. I believe the Bible to be God's inerrant word. But the key to it is that it has to be interpreted correctly. If it is not interpreted correctly, then the interpretation can easily turn into error.

What are the lessons taught by Genesis 1?

•God made the universe out of nothing.

•God is somehow well-expressed as a unified but somehow plural being/entity (trinity) – “Let us make man in our image…” Us and our indicate a Trinity.

•God made the universe for His own pleasure.

•God made the sun (which was considered a god by many contemporary religions), and it wasn't even the first thing He made...

•God made man with special intention apart from the rest of the animals, with the direct plan of relationship.

•God intends man to rest from his labor regularly, and specifically to focus on Him.

•God was personally involved and overseeing the whole process of creation, as he is still personally involved in the running of His universe He made (no deism "set it going and ignore it" God).

•Man's capacity/inevitability of sin, part and parcel with his/her intelligence and being imbued with a soul, requires us to rely on God to bridge the gap for the relationship to function.

•etc.

Thank you!!!

ANSWER: Hello Chris,
Thank you for your question. You are quite right in identifying that the Old Testament account of creation was not written as a scientific document but in a style that has poetic and symbolic touches. However, the problem arises when we try to disentangle what is symbolic from what is meant to be literal. It is true that the Hebrew word translated 'day' literally means 'period of time' but as these periods are defined as 'evening to morning' then it is a reasonable translation to use the word 'day'. What you have come up with as a synopsis of what the story of creation teaches is very good but could be added to. For example God was very specific that each animal should bring forth after their own kind thus making cross special evolutionary development impossible to square with scripture.
However, sometimes we need to challenge the science behind some of the criticisms of Genesis. There are plenty of scientists in the genetics field who imply the opposite to the man who spoke to you. Genetics suggests that the human race did come from one common set of parents. The issue that the level of diversity could not have happened in such a short time assumes two things that ought not to be assumed. One is that we know the date of the flood and the other is that rates of genetic change have remained constant through history.
Science simply takes the evidence available and finds the theory that best fits. As new evidence emerges the theory changes. This is very obvious in the realm of evolution where those scientists at the cutting edge of discovery are much less arrogant and certain than those at a lower level. Darwin proposed the idea of the survival of the fittest as a picture of development. Modern evolutionists teach that the selection is totally random. My own view is that there are enough uncertainties and missing evidences to render the whole evolutionary hypothesis very questionable at best.
In all areas of science theories will come and go as evidence is found but the scriptures will not change and they convey the timeless truth of God's creative work. I personally expect that when Jesus returns and all is revealed we are likely to be surprised at how literal Genesis is but time will tell. Meanwhile you are right to hold on to the core truths at the heart of the creation narrative.
I hope these comments are of some help.
Stuart Woodward

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi,

Thanks for your response. But I don't see how the word "kind" disproves evolution. I have heard that the word kind indicates micro-evolution. For example there are many different types of dogs around, but they're still all dogs. But if it allows for micro-evolution it can also allow for macro-evolution. Once something crosses into a different kind then it no longer is part of the first kind. The language in Genesis 1 does not definitely prohibit evolution. It just states that the different types of animals produced other animals of their kind. That doesn't mean that they didn't cross into other kinds of animals over time.

Thanks!!

Answer
Hello Chris,
The point you make is a fair one though arguing from micro evolution to macro evolution is fraught with difficulty. There is huge evidence for change and development within species yet despite the huge efforts of many the evidence for cross special development is at best patchy and far from convincing. To put it in scientifically crude terms the search for 'the missing link' is still going on with very flimsy support for the idea that it will ever be found. So far each 'link' between species has turned out to be in fact a separate species. However, it is right that science still does its work but some in the scientific community need a little more humility in their approach as do some in the 'creationist' camp.
May God bless you and keep you thinking.
Stuart Woodward.