Genesis Creation

Objectives

• Explains why the notion that only the most literal reading of Genesis 1 is required for good interpretation is flawed.
• Introduces common but flawed ideas relating to the interpretation of Genesis 1.
• Explains how the various ways Genesis 1:1-3 can be interpreted, and how the grammar produces options for answering the contention that Genesis 1 cannot be reconciled with modern cosmology.

Pre-work

• Watch:
  • The Naked Bible video, Genesis 1:1-3 Michael Heiser PhD NEW (1:10:51)

Additional Resources

• Articles:

  • Tichomis G. Tenev, John Baugmgardner, Mark Horstemeyer, A Solution for the Distant Starlight Problem Using Creation Time Coordinates, from the Proceedings of the International Conference on Creationism

    NOTE: If you are into physics, you will find this defense of Hartnett’s ideas interesting.

  • Bruce K. Waltke, The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3, from the Bibliotheca Sacra:

    • Part II: The Restitution Theory

    • Part III: The Initial Chaos Theory and the Precreation Chaos Theory

      NOTE: Waltke’s term “restitution theory” equals “gap theory.”

• Books:
  • Weston W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled a Critique of the Gap Theory:
    • Chapter 3
    • Chapter 4
    • Chapter 5

Discussion

The Rational Wiki page “Book of Genesis” includes the following statement:

Apparently the lights in the sky were also created to act as signs. The idea that the movement, configuration, and appearance of celestial bodies conveyed personal messages was really common in primitive societies. This idea is now generally referred to as astrology, which is forbidden and ridiculed in many other scriptural references. Genesis 1 apparently endorses astrological thinking.

Considering the readings and the lectures, assess the claim. How might it be reworded to be improved? Are there any logical flaws in the claim?