Math Tutorials and More
by George

• The Intermittent Day Interpretation — In this view the days are ordinary 24-hour days separated by periods of unspecified length. Thus, the days are ``normal'' and consecutive, but not contiguous. The main thrust of this interpretation is to harmonize the account in Genesis with the long time periods believed in by most scientists. The lack of a definite article with days one through five would seem to allow for this possibility. The Oxford Mathematician John Lennox takes this viewpoint in his book Seven Days That Divide The World [19].
• The Days of Divine Fiat Interpretation — This is a view proposed by the English physicist Alan Hayward in his book Creation and Evolution [11]. Here the days are six consecutive 24-hour days in which God said his instructions, while the fulfillment of those instructions took place over unspecified and possibly overlapping periods of time. Hayword interprets the result following each of God's pronouncements as a parenthetical expression (there were no parentheses in Biblical Hebrew, but translators sometimes insert them). For example, he would write the account of the first day as follows

  And God said, “Let there be light.” (And there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.) And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

  The result of God's pronouncement is sure, but may take place over an unspecified time period.
  This is an interesting interpretation, but the text seems to indicate actual creation occurring on the various days.
• The Temple Interpretation — In this interpretation the seven days are seen as describing God's construction of a temple for himself. This interpretation seems strange to us, but in the ancient world the association of gods and temples was widespread. The temple interpretation can be found in the works of Walton [16] and of Middleton [17]. Here is a quote by N.T. Wright [27]

  The original creation story envisaged a God who was making a dwelling place for himself. The six “days,” or “stages,” of creation indicate, to those who understand the world of the ancient Near East, that creation itself, heaven and earth together, is a kind of temple, a dwelling place for God. And, as in all ancient temples (except the one in Jerusalem, for reasons that will become apparent), there was an “image” or statue of the god in question, so the creator God places into the “temple” of his heaven-and-earth creation his own “image,” human beings made to reflect him, to bring his creativity to birth in his world, and to reflect the praises of the world back to the creator.

  In ancient cultures a temple was seen as a dwelling place for their god. In this interpretation of Genesis 1 the whole cosmos ( the heavens and the earth) is viewed as God's dwelling place. This view is also echoed in Isaiah 66:1–2

  This says YHWH
  Heaven is my throne
  and earth is my footstool.
  Where could you build a house for me?
  What place could serve as my dwelling?
  All this was made by my hand,
  And thus it came into being — declares YHWH.

  Walton emphasizes that ancient accounts were more interested in the creation of function than in the creation of the material world. He gives as a modern example the creation of a company. A company doesn't come into existence with the construction of the buildings, but with the commencement of business operations. Middleton emphasizes the importance of images in a temple. Images were placed in ancient temples to indicate that their god resided there. They didn't believe that these images or idols were actually gods, but were a reminder of their god's presence. In Genesis 1 we are described as being God's images. We are to reflect God's presence to the world. Ancient cultures used the size of their temples to show the importance of their god. Surely no temple was as large as that described in Genesis one.

  While function was very important to the Hebrews, it is hard to believe that functional creation is all that is being talked about in Genesis 1. For example, verses 14 and 15 talk about the creation of the lights in the heavens and then talk about their function. Similarly, verse 11 seems to describe the creation of plants and trees whereas verses 29 and 30 seem to describe their function.

  A number of authors have noticed the importance of the number seven in the creation account of Genesis 1:1–2:3. Here are some of the occurrences of seven in this passage

  1. There were seven days described.
  2. There were seven execution reports ("and it was so").
  3. There were seven evaluation reports ("and God saw that it was good").
  4. God is mentioned 35 times (5×7) in this passage.
  5. The earth is mentioned 21 times (3×7) in this passage.
  6. The entire passage contains 469 (67×7) Hebrew words.
  7. The opening verse Genesis 1:1 contains seven Hebrew words.
  8. The second verse of the preamble (Genesis 1:2) contains 14 (2×7) Hebrew words.
  9. There are 35 (5×7) Hebrew words describing the 7th day and the Hebrew Sabbath.

  The number seven also played an important role in the construction of Solomon's temple. The temple was dedicated during the seven day Feast of Tabernacles (1 Kings 8:2). Solomon's dedication speech contained seven petitions. It should also be noted that the building of the temple took seven years. Walton views Genesis 1 as a temple dedication.

  The gods in ancient cultures were often described as resting in their temple after an important battle with other gods or after resolving some form of chaos. This didn't indicate inactivity, but was an indication of a return to normalcy. In Genesis God is said to have rested on the seventh day. God certainly didn't rest because he was tired, but he rested because he had completed the building of his residence and was now ready to reside there and enjoy what he had made. As we have seen before, this day is given no ending.

  This interpretation is often adopted by Theistic Evolutionists, but there is no reason it needs to be restricted to this group.

• Attack against Polytheism — When we come to the opening chapters of Genesis, we ask questions such as “How was the universe created?”; “In what order were things created?”; “How long did it take?”; “How does this account square with the findings of science?”; etc. However, these were probably not the questions the original hearers were asking. It has been traditionally believed that Genesis was written by Moses during the wanderings in the wilderness following the deliverance from Egypt. The Hebrews had spent approximately 400 years in Egypt where they were certainly exposed to the Egyptian gods. Some scholars believe that the creation account in Genesis 1 is an attack against polytheism rather than a detailed description of creation. All the cultures in that part of the world (Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc.) had gods associated with almost every aspect of nature. They had gods for light, darkness, the sun, the moon, seas, the sky, birds, animals, and sea creatures. It is possible that each of the days is an affirmation that every aspect of nature is the creation of the one true God and is not under the control of a separate god. It is certainly true that polytheism was a major threat to the nation of Israel throughout its history. This viewpoint is described in the book In The Beginning … We Misunderstood by Miller and Soden [26].
• Historical Creationism — This is an interesting interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 presented by Old Testament Professor John Sailhamer in his book Genesis Unbound [18]. He bases his approach to these chapters on an analysis of the Hebrew text in the context of its location at the beginning of the Pentateuch. In his interpretation, Genesis 1:1 describes the creation of the whole universe and the Hebrew word ‘reshit’ for beginning refers to an unspecified period of time (possibly billions of years). He claims that a better translation of the Hebrew word ‘eretz’ in vers 2 and the rest of Genesis is ‘land’ rather than ‘earth’ as is common in most translations. In particular, he believes that in most cases it refers to the land promised to his people by God. He also says that the Hebrew phrase ‘tohu wabohu’ in Genesis 1:2 does not mean ‘without form and void’ as it is often translated. Instead, he claims that the phrase conveys the idea of ‘uninhabitable’ and ‘wilderness’. As a result, he interprets the six days described in Genesis 1 as God's preparation of a land for his people and does not refer to the creation of the whole earth (this was done in verse 1). He draws a parallel between Eden in Genesis 2 and God's later ‘promised land’. In both cases the land was bounded by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in both cases God had a close relationship with his people in the land, and in both cases obedience to God was a condition for continuing to dwell in the land. Following disobedience to God's commands, in both cases his people were expelled from the land towards the east (Babylon). He claims that his interpretation fits in well with the rest of the Pentateuch and solves many other problems that have plagued interpreters.

There are many other interpretations, but these should give you an idea of the principal interpretations. Let us now look at the principal arguments for and against the four major views described above.

+++++