The context of Genesis 1
Gen. 1 uses the same kind of language as the rest of the Old Testament so we should interpret it with the same grammatical and exegetical rules we use to interpret the rest of Scripture. And although it is not describing human history (until the sixth day), Gen. 1 is still specifically written to human beings. The purpose of God (and Moses) in writing the creation account was to explain how the world came to be. While this means that they were describing primordial events, it also means that they were doing so to explain the world’s current situation. The creation account was written to answer questions such as: where did the animals come from? Where did the stars come from? Where did the plants and the rain and the sun come from? Where did we come from? It is poor reasoning and poor exegesis to claim that Gen. 1 is describing the creation of a lost world that is completely divorced from our own and is therefore unavailable to scientific inquiry. The events described in Gen. 1 are meant to explain the world we experience.
However, this must be taken with the fact that Gen. 1 is only a page long. It’s obviously not intended to be exhaustive, nor even particularly detailed. It’s a very broad description of how God created and organized the universe and earth.
Another point to make is that while Gen. 1 is concerned with how things began, it also implies that things will end. “(A)s many biblical scholars have noted, the concept of a ‘beginning’ includes the idea of an ‘end.’ There is an eschatology, a view of ‘last things,’ already in the first words of the Bible.”{i} As such, the first, second, third (etc.) days seem to foreshadow the “last day” (or “the day of the Lord” or “judgment” or “wrath”) which will come when Christ returns.
In the beginning
As stated in chapter 1, the phrase “heavens and earth” in the first verse of the Bible is a merism in which two opposites are used to express totality. Thus, they refer to the entire physical universe. Some have interpreted this to mean that the first verse is a title for Gen. 1 or a summary statement referring to creation week as a whole, but this seems overwrought. This passage is simply (!) referring to the creation of the universe: matter, energy, stars, planets, the sun, etc. The rest of creation week describes what God did afterwards.
Another issue is the description of the earth as tohu wabohu (“formless and empty”). I won’t go into detail about this phrase here, except to suggest that since Gen. 1 is primarily concerned with God’s preparation of the earth to support life and his subsequent creation of life, tohu wabohu may be referring to how the early earth did not have the “form” of being life-supporting, and so was “empty” of life.
Point of view
After verse 1 the Bible specifically changes the point of view—the perspective from which events are being described—to the surface of the earth. This is demonstrated by the statements that darkness was over the surface of (or on the face of) the deep and that the Spirit of God was moving or brooding or hovering over the surface of the waters (vs. 2). This perspective is then reiterated in verse 15—”…let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” Since this context is established in the creation narrative, and is not redefined therein, the description of events in Gen. 1:2ff should be understood from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the earth.{ii}
This illuminates the fact that, immediately following the statement about the Holy Spirit’s activity on the surface of the earth and that the surface was shrouded in darkness, we are immediately told “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (1:3). Since this verse is clearly a response to the statement that there was darkness on the earth’s surface, it should be understood as stating that light first appeared on the earth’s surface.
Another suggestion made at this point involves the statement that God’s Spirit was “hovering” (rahap){iii} over the surface of the waters. This verb is only used one other time in the Old Testament, in Deut. 32:11, where it describes a mother eagle on her nest hovering over her young. Some have therefore taken this imagery into Gen. 1 and said that the use of this verb implies that the text is referring to the first creation of primitive life on the early earth, at exactly the stage that science has discovered.{iv}
With all due respect to those who advocate this, I think this is a huge leap with no real exegetical evidence in its favor. Taking the imagery from this term’s only other use and inserting it into Gen. 1 is simply unjustified.
Day one
Once light reached the earth’s surface, God called it “day,” and he called the darkness, or the absence of light “night.” I went into excruciating detail about this in chapter 2, so for now I’ll just reiterate two points: first, light/darkness and day/night aren’t referring to temporal periods of light and darkness, much less to calendar days (since calendar days are specifically introduced on day four), but instead simply refer to the phenomena of light or darkness being on the surface of the earth. Second, the text seems to make a distinction between these phenomena and the first day of creation.
Day two
On the second day, God made an “expanse” or “dome” which he named the sky. This expanse separated the water above it from the water below it. The common young-earth interpretation is that the water above refers to a primeval water canopy which surrounded the earth, and which collapsed to cause Noah’s flood. I discuss this more thoroughly in chapter 9, but for now I’ll just point out that I don’t think this scenario is biblically valid.
Since Gen. 1 is describing how God created the world we experience, and since the perspective of the events in Gen. 1 is the surface of the earth, I contend that the “waters above” refers to clouds and precipitation and the “waters below” refers to bodies of water, such as rivers, streams, and oceans. More broadly, the waters above probably includes the whole atmosphere and the water below probably includes the underground sources of water. This interpretation receives strong confirmation by other biblical passages describing the same event (Prov. 3:19-20; 8:27-29). Thus, on day two God established a stable water cycle.
Some might object that the text couldn’t refer to bodies of water, there being no land yet to separate one such body from another; that comes on day three. For the same reason, the text couldn’t be referring to underground sources before there was any ground. But, again, I would just argue that the waters below refers to any and all bodies of water as well as their sources. Since the earth was covered entirely by water, it seems evident that the “waters below” refers to this water. I’m not sure what else there would be for it to refer to.
It might also be objected that clouds and precipitation couldn’t refer to the waters above the sky. But it must be remembered that the term for sky (shamayim) has several different definitions even within Gen. 1 itself; from where the birds fly (1:20) to where the stars shine (1:14-18) and all points between. Since the clouds, precipitation, and atmosphere are above the level of the sky where birds fly, this could easily be referred to as water “above the sky.” On the other hand, if it is referring to waters above the level of the sky where stars shine, this obviously wouldn’t refer to a water canopy that surrounded the earth.
Day three
After forming dry land, God creates the first plants on day three. Hugh Ross has pointed out that the words used to describe these plants (zera’, ‘es, and peri; usually translated “seed,” “trees,” and “fruit” respectively) are very general, and “Thus, these terms do include the relatively primitive plant species scientists have identified as the first land vegetation.” Ross adds that, “The text does not say that all land vegetation appeared at this time, but emphasizes, rather, that God chose this time for dry land to abound with vegetation.”{v} Some day-age proponents have also thought it suggestive that it says “Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation’” on day three rather than “and God made the vegetation grow” or something equivalent; that is, God may be the ultimate cause of the growth, but not the direct cause. I find this claim ambiguous.{vi}
Day four
In Gen. 1:14-17 we have the difficulty of the text seeming to describe the creation of the sun, moon, and stars on day four after light is on the surface of the earth on day one. Here I will briefly concern myself with three interpretations of this. First is the framework interpretation which maintains that days one and four are describing the same event, and therefore the days of creation are not sequential periods of time. I disagree with this interpretation because I think these events are distinct from each other.
The second interpretation is that since the Holy Spirit was on the earth’s surface (Gen. 1:2), and since the Bible sometimes associates God’s presence with light (Exod. 13:21-2; Deut. 1:32-33; Ps. 104:2; Hab. 3:3-4), the light which illuminated the earth’s surface from day one to day four was God’s shekinah glory. These considerations amount to circumstantial exegetical evidence, so this interpretation is certainly possible. The problem it faces, however, is twofold: first, there is no direct exegetical evidence that the light was God’s shekinah glory. If the text does not depict this light as something exceptional, we should be careful of affirming that it was. Second, the term for light used in Gen. 1 only refers to the light of the sun, moon, and stars elsewhere in the Bible. This doesn’t rule out the possibility of it having another source, but, together with the first point, it does seem to define this light as being normally, rather than exceptionally, generated.
This is the interpretation that is usually advocated by young-earth proponents, presumably to respond to the common objection that if the sun, moon, and stars weren’t introduced until day four, the first three days were certainly not “normal” days. This interpretation is thus seen as a refutation of this argument. But I see two problems with this: first, it doesn’t actually refute the argument. Regardless of whether the first three days were illuminated by God’s shekinah glory, they would still not be solar or calendar (or “normal”) days. Second, it presents us with a somewhat unusual situation: God created the light on the first day (vs. 2), called it “good,” but then almost immediately replaced it with another light from a different source, and then called it “good.” If the first light was “good,” why did God replace it so quickly? If the second source of light was “good,” why didn’t he just create it in the first place? In fact, this is a common objection young-earth advocates make against an old earth—namely, that it would make “God have to redirect and recharge everything at intervals.”{vii}
The third interpretation is that since “the heavens and the earth” were created in the beginning, and since this phrase always includes the sun, the light the sun produced first reached the surface of the earth on day one; but it wasn’t until day four that the sun, moon, and stars could be seen themselves. In other words, on day one the atmosphere became translucent, allowing light to pass through it (like an overcast sky). On day four the atmosphere became transparent, so the sources of this light could be seen for the first time. In fact, this interpretation seems confirmed when God tells Job that the primordial darkness was caused by cloud cover (Job 38:9).
The problem this interpretation faces is that Gen. 1:14-17 seems to be describing the creation of the sun, moon, and stars, not just their appearance in the sky. But there are three important points to take into consideration here: first, as already noted, the point of view from which this occurrence is being described is the surface of the earth; in fact, the text explicitly reaffirms this perspective in this very passage: “...let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth” (1:15). Second, in light of the point of view, when the text says “Let there be lights in the sky,” this is being described phenomenally. That is, the “sky” (shamayim) refers merely to what an observer would see if he looked up. This is why Gen. 1 can describe the sky as the place where both birds fly and stars shine. When the Bible describes the sun rising and setting or moving across the sky, it is not describing this from an objective standpoint (since the motion of the sun across the sky is caused by the earth’s motion, not the sun’s), it is describing it from a subjective standpoint. This doesn’t make it inaccurate or “non-literal”; it just takes the perspective from which a given event is being described into account. As noted in the Introduction, phenomenal language is “employed by all languages at all periods of their history,”{viii} including our own. So it is not an imposition on the biblical text to understand descriptions of physical phenomena in light of it.
Let me put this another way: if the sun, moon, and stars had already been created, but couldn’t be seen from the surface of the earth, it would be perfectly appropriate to describe the first time they could be seen with the phrase “Let there be lights in the sky.”
The third thing to note is that some of God’s acts are described in the creation narrative with the phrase “Let there be X”; for example, “Let there be light” (vs. 3) or “Let there be an expanse” (vs. 6). Gen. 1:14, however, is different.
We should be careful to note that in verse 14 God does not say, “Let there be lights … to separate …,” as if there were no lights before this command and afterward the lights were created. Rather, the Hebrew text reads, “God said, ‘Let the lights in the expanse be for separating …’” In other words, unlike the syntax of verse 6, the syntax in verse 14 assumes that the lights were already in the expanse, and in response to his command they were given a purpose, “to separate the day and night” and “to serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years.” If the difference between the syntax of verse 6 (the use of [hayyah] alone) and verse 14 ([hayyah] with an infinitive) is significant, then it suggests that the author does not understand his account of the fourth day as an account of the creation of the lights but, on the contrary, he assumes that the heavenly lights have already been created “in the beginning.”{ix}
According to Sailhamer, the fact that this verse describes God’s assigning the sun, moon, and stars their calendar roles rather than their creation further resolves the apparent contradiction that they were created both “in the beginning” and on the fourth day: when God said that the lights were for separating the day from the night, he isn’t bringing them into existence, but assigning them a specific purpose. It is on the fourth day that day and night are presented as calendar concepts. Thus, God created the sun, moon, and stars in the beginning; on the first day their light first reached the earth’s surface, so that it was sometimes day (light) and sometimes night (darkness); and on the fourth day the sources of light could be seen, and thus could be used as calendar markers.
This only addresses part of the problem, though: after the description of the lights in the sky being seen and assigned a purpose, Gen. 1:16-17 states that “God made two great lights … God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.” This seems to affirm that the sun, moon, and stars were created on day four. However, these statements come after God’s declaration “and it was so,” a phrase which indicates that the action had already been completed. Thus, Gen. 1:16-17 are parenthetical statements that refer back to the creation of “the heavens and the earth” in verse 1, and should be translated past perfect instead of simple past tense: “God had made two great lights … God had set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.”{x} This, by the way, is the exact same pattern that happens in Gen. 2:19 which seems to say that after God had placed Adam in the garden, he created the animals—contrary to Gen. 1 which asserts that the animals were created first. But the statement that God formed the animals and birds should be translated past perfect as God “had formed” the animals and birds.{xi}
The fourth point to make here regards the verbs used in Gen. 1 for God’s activity of creating. The verb bara means “to create,” asa means “to make,” and yasar means “to form or fashion.” But none of these verbs is used to describe the introduction of the sun, moon, and stars on day four; instead, the text simply uses the verb “to be,” hayyah. Moreover, God’s creation of the heavens and the earth in the beginning—which, again, would include the sun, moon, and stars—uses the verb bara.
Days five and six
Ross also points out that the term used to describe the animals which God created on days five and six is nephesh. The root meaning of this word is “soul,” and he argues that when it refers to animals, it only indicates animals which exhibit the “soulish” properties of mind, will, and emotion; and that it would be difficult to apply this to animals other than mammals and birds.{xii} Thus, on day five, God created sea mammals and birds, and on day six he created certain kinds of land mammals: behemah, or easily tamed mammals (i.e. cattle and livestock);{xiii} chayya, or wild mammals (lions and tigers and bears),{xiv} and remes, or short-legged mammals (rodents).{xv} By claiming that verses 24-25 are only referring to the creation of certain kinds of land mammals, Ross addresses another difficulty: the fossil record testifies to the creation of land mammals before the creation of sea mammals. But, according to Ross’s interpretation, 1:24-25 is only describing the creation of particular land mammals, which don’t show up in the fossil record until after sea mammals.
The reason the text would limit itself to describing the creation of “soulish” animals (according to Ross), is because these are the kinds of creatures with which human beings can form a relationship. Thus, the Genesis creation account is simply describing the creation of those aspects of creation which have the most relevance for humankind.
Another possibility
It seems just as plausible to me, however, to think that Gen. 1 is describing general events, and that nephesh refers to animals in general, not just to mammals and birds. If this is the case, the text may simply be saying that on day three God created the first land-based plant life. On day five he created the first forms of animal life in the sea (sheres) and air (‘oph), as well as larger forms of animal life in the sea (behemah and nephesh). Then he created advanced animal life on the land on day six (behemah, chayya, and remes).
Let me explicate more clearly about what this would mean for days five and six. The text says that on day five, “God said, ‘Let the water teem [sheres] with living creatures [nephesh], and let birds [‘oph] fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.’ So God created the great creatures [behemoth] of the sea and every living and moving thing [nephesh] with which the water teems [sheres], according to their kinds, and every winged bird [‘oph] according to its kind.”
The word sheres means “swarming things,” and the word usually translated birds, “‘oph,” refers to anything that flies. I’m suggesting that the term sheres may establish a context, so that it also applies to the ‘oph; in which case this passage is essentially saying “Let there be swarming things both in the water and in the air” (or literally “with wings”). Elsewhere in the Bible when sheres and ‘oph are used together, they refer to insects, that is, “swarming things with wings” (Lev. 11:20-23). If this interpretation is valid, the text is simply saying that God created swarming things in the sea (the first forms of life in the sea), swarming things in the air (the first forms of life in the air; or possibly more advanced life, such as insects), and larger forms of life in the sea (behemoth and nephesh). Then on day six, God created the first forms of life on the land (nephesh, behemah, chayya, and remes). All of this is just a suggestion.
The creation sequence
If the above is correct, Gen. 1 describes the following sequence of events:
a) Gen. 1:1. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Creation of the universe (matter, energy, earth, sun, moon, stars, etc).
b) 1:2. “…darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.” The point of view shifts to the earth’s surface.
c) 1:3-5. “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.” Light can be seen on the earth’s surface for the first time. The light is either God’s shekinah glory, or (more likely, I think) sunlight first reaching the surface due to the transformation of earth’s atmosphere from opaqueness to translucence. Day 1.
d) 1:6-8. “God … separated the water under the expanse from the water above it.” Stable water cycle established through condensation and precipitation. Day 2.
e) 1:9-10. “And God said, ‘Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.’ And it was so.” Formation of first continent(s) and ocean(s). Day 3.
f) 1:11-13. “Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation.’ … And it was so.” Creation of the first plant life on land. Day 3.
g) 1:14-19. “And God said, ‘Let the lights in the expanse of the sky be for separating day from night, and let them serve as signs for marking seasons and days and years.’ … And it was so.”{xvi} Transformation of atmosphere from translucent to transparent. Celestial objects (sun, moon, stars) can actually be seen for the first time from the earth’s surface, and are assigned their calendar roles. Day 4.
h) 1:20-21. “And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures (sheres), and let winged ones (‘oph) fly above the earth.’ So God created the great creatures of the sea (behemoth) and every living and moving thing (nephesh) with which the water teems (sheres), according to their kinds, and every winged one (‘oph) according to its kind.”{xvii} Creation of the first animal life in the sea and the air. Day 5.
i) 1:24-25. “Let the land produce living creatures (nephesh) according to their kind.” Creation of the first animal life on the land. Day 6.
j) 1:26-31. “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” Creation of human beings. Day 6.
Whether Ross’s interpretation or mine is correct (both are consistent with Hebrew concordances and lexicons), this demonstrates that Gen. 1 can be reconciled with the findings of modern science. This provides us with a powerful tool for proving the supernatural authority of the Bible.
Verse 30
As stated in the previous chapter, when God told humanity that they and the animals would eat plants, he did so to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. Therefore, he was probably only referring to the animals in the garden. When they were expelled from Eden, they entered the larger world which God had created, which included the intricate and highly ordered ecosystem—in which animals kill and eat each other. However, the Bible suggests that human beings may not have begun eating meat right away: Gen. 9:2-3 seems to be saying that it wasn’t until after the flood that God sanctioned the eating of meat to Noah and his descendants. This passage echoes Gen. 1:30 by saying “Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything,” which strongly implies that God is now (after the flood) giving them animals to eat as well. Of course, this may only mean that meat eating was thereafter allowed, not that human beings had not actually done it. After all, the people were disobedient enough for God to destroy them with the flood, so it’s not much of a stretch to think that they may have eaten meat without God’s permission.
Some, however, have questioned whether Gen. 1:30 means that they and the animals in Eden only ate plants. This is usually assumed, but the text only states that the plants were created for the animals and humanity to eat, not that the plants were all they could eat. It’s not necessarily some kind of “vegetarian mandate.” It may just be a background statement to explain why, a few verses later, an exception to the sanction to eat plants is made in the case of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:1-3). In fact, there are some passages in Scripture which could be seen as confirmation of this claim.
Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 warns Timothy against the demon-inspired prohibition of marriage and foods. Paul refutes this notion by appealing to the doctrine of creation. The Jewish legalists of Paul’s day were commanding abstinence from foods “which God created.” In doing so, they were violating the principle that “every creature of God is good” and to be “received with thanksgiving.” Paul’s appeal to creation to support the notion that believers are free to partake of “every creature of God” presupposes that man’s diet was not restricted in the pre-Fall situation. Note that Paul classifies dietary freedom along with marriage as a pre-Fall creation ordinance.{xvii}
Personally, I don’t find this argument convincing. I am inclined to agree that when God says to Noah and his descendants “Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything,” this is the first authorization by God for people to eat meat.
Verse 31
In verse 31, we encounter the statement that God surveyed what he had done and said that it was “very good.” This, it is claimed, contradicts the discoveries of science to the effect that the universe has been degenerating since its inception, and the ecosystem (where animals kill and eat each other) was present long before human beings arrived on the scene.
I see two ways to resolve this. First, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the angelic host (and this would include Satan) was created before or during creation week (Job 38:4-7), and Satan was a murderer and sinner “from the beginning” (John 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8)—that is, he either fell immediately upon being created, or fell when God created the universe in the beginning. This would lead to two points: 1) since Satan was already fallen, it’s possible that he “poisoned” God’s good creation. The text specifically says that God looked at everything he had done and called it very good. This may mean nothing more than that God was pleased with what he had created—not that, at the end of creation week, everything was in the same state it had been in when God created it. 2) Since Satan was created before or during creation week, and had already fallen prior to its completion, he obviously wasn’t very good at the end of it. Thus, “very good,” doesn’t mean “perfect.” It may simply mean that it was sufficient to accomplish God’s will.
Against this second point, however, is that since the description of God’s creation as “very good” is within the context of the creation narrative of Gen. 1, it is probably just referring to the events described therein, which are about the physical world. So God is calling the physical universe “very good.” The text is not referring to Satan or the spiritual world.
The second (and, to my mind, preferable) solution to this issue is to point out that there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that the “natural order” which involves the entropy or energy dispersal of the universe (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics) and the ecosystem is evil. Thus, it may be very good, it just wasn’t meant for those created in God’s image. In confirmation of this is the fact noted earlier, that there is biblical evidence that carnivorous activity among animals was present before the fall, and that it is considered “good” (Ps. 104:21, 27-28). Humanity was safe from predators because God created them to live in paradise, but to draw further conclusions, like that there was no animal death outside of Eden, goes beyond what the text says.
Objections and responses
Objection: The phrase “heavens and earth” is not a merism, because there are other Bible passages in which a third element is named. For example, the Ten Commandments states, “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below” (Exod. 20:4). Since a merism combines two opposites to express the totality they encompass, having three elements makes it impossible for them to be referring to two opposite poles, and therefore, everything between them.
Response: First, this argument simply does not work. If I say that A + B = C, you don’t refute this by showing that A + B + D does not = C. Adding another element to the equation can very easily change the meaning. So claiming that “heavens and earth and water” isn’t a merism does nothing to counter the claim that “heavens and earth” is.
At any rate, though, I don’t see the problem here. Exod. 20:4 (and similar passages) is obviously trying to express totality exactly like a merism does: don’t make idols in the form of anything above (in the heavens) anything below (in the waters) or anything in between (on the earth). It’s not like it’s saying if we find some fourth location that doesn’t fall under one of these categories, God’s OK with us making idols in the form of its inhabitants. It’s saying “Don’t make idols. Period.” The difference is merely that, rather than naming two elements to represent above and below, it lists three to represent above, below, and the middle.
Perhaps one could argue that in the merism “heavens and earth,” the earth is functioning as the element below, while in “heavens and earth and water,” it is functioning as the in-between element; and this casts doubt on identifying the former as a merism. But again, I don’t see how. “Heavens and earth and water” is essentially an expanded merism, taking into account that water is (usually) at a lower level than land on the earth’s surface. This does nothing to counter the claim that when “heavens and earth” is used without reference to water, it’s just saying the same thing in a simpler fashion.
Objection: God did not say “Let the sun, moon, and stars appear in the sky” on the fourth day, but “Let the sun, moon, and stars be in the sky.” Thus, they were created on the fourth day.
Response: But they were “to be” in the sky. Since the context is an observer on the earth’s surface, the sky is simply referring to what an observer would see when he looked up. Thus, the text wouldn’t need to say that they merely appeared in the sky in order to make it clear that this isn’t referring to their creation. Moreover, it doesn’t just say “Let the sun, moon, and stars be in the sky,” but says “Let [them] be in the sky for marking days, seasons, and years.” Thus the text is referring to their assignment of particular purposes on the fourth day, not their creation.
Objection: Since the sun, moon, and stars weren’t created until the fourth day, they couldn’t have been included in the “heavens and earth” that were created in the beginning. Therefore, the “heavens” in verse one refers to empty space.
Response: First, the merism “heavens and earth” refers to the entire physical universe everywhere else in the Bible, not open space. If Gen. 1:1 doesn’t refer to the creation of the sun, moon, and stars then there is simply nothing for it to refer to. “Empty space” is largely a philosophical and modern scientific concept, and I doubt the ancient Hebrews even had such a notion. Second, as already noted, the text seems to say that the sun, moon, and stars were assigned a purpose on the fourth day, not that they were created.
Objection: If the days of creation were long periods of time, the plants, created on the third day, couldn’t have survived, since the sun, moon, and stars weren’t created until the fourth day.
Response: First, the text clearly tells us that there was light on the surface of the earth before the plants (1:5), and this would have been sufficient for photosynthesis, regardless of what the source of light was. Second, the plants couldn’t have survived for 24 seconds without sufficient light and heat, much less 24 hours. This is just as much a problem for the calendar-day interpretation as it is for the day-age interpretation. Finally, like the others, this objection assumes that the account of the fourth day is describing the creation of the celestial objects rather than their assignation of a purpose.
Objection: The plants were created on the third day of creation, but the insects weren’t created until day six (remes—creeping things). Since many plants require insects in order to pollinate, if the days of creation aren’t 24-hour periods, the plants wouldn’t have survived.
Response: There are two misunderstandings here: the text doesn’t necessarily mean that God created every plant species on the fourth day, but only that he began to create plants then. Moreover, the terms which describe the plants that were created on the fourth day can apply to the early, primitive plants which didn’t need pollination by insects in order to propagate.
Second, if the “swarming things with wings” which God created on the fifth day refers to insects, they were present earlier than we think. On the other hand, Ross maintains that the creation of insects is simply not referred to in Gen. 1, so we can’t tell when they were created. Either way, this objection doesn’t pose a problem.
Objection: Gen. 1 describes the creation of all animals. To say it only describes the creation of certain animals is a forced interpretation.
Response: Gen. 1 is a summary of creation week. If every detail of God’s creation activities were reported, it would be millions of pages long. Since it’s only one page long, we should realize that it isn’t meant to be exhaustive in scope. Besides, there’s nothing forced in thinking the text is only describing those aspects of creation that have the most relevance for human beings. It was written for human beings.
Objection: Gen. 1:29-30 states that God only gave plants for animals to consume; to limit this to the garden of Eden is a forced interpretation. Therefore, carnivorous activity was not a part of the original creation and was instigated by the fall of mankind.
Response: It would be very difficult to deny that this passage is being spoken to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before they had sinned. Thus, this statement is only referring to the animals in the garden, the “sanctuary” which God had created for humanity. This conclusion is derived from the text, and therefore is not forced.
Notes:
{i} John Sailhamer (1996), 43.
{ii} Gleason Archer (1982), 58-63; Hugh Ross (1998), 21-3; (2004), 231-4.
{iii} TWOT, 2:843.
{iv} Peter W. Stoner (1958), 39-40; Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (2004).
{v} Hugh Ross (1998), 39.
{vi} See chapter 5.
{vii} Henry Morris (1980).
{viii} Archer (1982), 93.
{ix} Sailhamer (1992), 93. I’m unaware, however, of any translation which follows this pattern.
{x} Archer (1982), 61-2.
{xi} Not to mention the fact that the context of Gen. 2 is the garden of Eden rather than the whole earth. See the previous chapter.
{xii} Hugh Ross (1998), 49-50.
{xiii}
{xiv} Oh my!
{xv} While remes simply means “creeping things,” Ross maintains that in this context they have already been defined as nephesh, and thus should be understood as “soulish creeping things,” i.e., rodents.
{xvi} Sailhamer’s translation, based on the NIV, which reads: “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night…”
{xvii} Meredith Kline and Lee Irons (2001b), 287.