The Genesis Debate

It is my recommendation after each chapter, that you go to the end of the book and read the conclusion statement. I found myself multiple times during this book agreeing with aspects of a particular view and shaking my head in other regards. At times the water was muddier than clear but after the last page was turned I had some positives I could take away from it all. First off, it is easy to be lulled into the traditions of a particular denomination and stop asking the tough questions. Truth should always be the main objective and its source is Christ. Second, general knowledge shouldn’t be feared but should be rooted and sifted through scripture. The positives of this debate are: any time a body of believers discuss scripture there is fruit that comes out of it. This is how progress can be made and our culture can be engaged. The more difficult texts can be examined and the average believer can be equipped to handle scripture rightly. This debate opened up the views and possible weaknesses and allows subsequent thinkers to engage and expand upon the knowledge set forth here. Things I expected more of: I thought like other reviewers that the 24 hr position could have engaged more meaningfully with the other views. I have heard better responses from other 24 hr proponents elsewhere and I really wish that would have taken place here but it seemed like the debate frequently went toward brow beating and misrepresentation. I also find sometimes that in all the scholarship of theological studies, sometimes a simple explanation at the end of an argument would bring the common believer into the discussion. Occasionally in this debate the argument would get lost in the language. For me, the book was fruitful and while I still haven’t settled my view on this matter, the issues are a little more focused and the questions are a little more defined. Thankful for those who presented their case and grateful for the conclusion statement that kept me from abandoning all hope along the way!

I purchased this book to gain a greater understanding of the 24-hour and framework views. I found the day-age views and the framework views extremely well presented. Whether or not you agree with these positions, the authors present their views thoughtfully, respectfully, and with great clarity and depth. I found the essays from both views to be very enjoyable and I learned something from both of them. The 24-hour view, however, was a great disappointment. The presentation basically boiled down to "This is the way the average person would read this passage. Historically, this has been the way the church interpreted it. That's the way we should interpret it today." This position was stated and restated over and over, and far from being compelling, it grew tedious very quickly. Not only was the 24-hour argument repetitive, but it was stated with great disrespect to the other views. The tone was sarcastic and condescending, and in their critiques, the authors consistently and repeatedly misrepresented the other two views. In my opinion, the initial 24-hour essay and the 24-hour rebuttals were counterproductive, shallow, and not fitting a respectful Christian exchange. I purchased this book to gain more understanding of the framework and 24-hour views. I got only half of what I was looking for. I highly recommend it for the day-age and framework discussions, which are scholarly, respectful, and interesting. If you are looking for the same from the 24-hour view, you will have to look elsewhere.

In getting two Young-Earth proponents to debate their ideas in a civilized format with proponents of other views, the editors of this volume have more than earned their 5 stars (I'd give them six if six were an option). Young Earth'ers are vociferous dogmatics who routinely castigate other believers as heretics for not subscribing wholeheartedly to their particular interpretation of Genesis - in arranging for a fair debate between Young Earth creationists and other scholars, this book reveals how Biblically hollow and unsatisfying Y.E. arguments really are. I was literally shocked to the point of revulsion at how weak YEC theories are - all the YEC team did was assert that ALL prescientific Biblical commentators (Calvin, Luther, various church fathers) believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old and that anyone with another view was a liberal-compromiser with evil "science." The YEC team's assertation that all pre-1800 Christians believed in a young earth was quickly shown to be false (although the YECs refused to accept the truthfulness of the Old Earth team's quotes!), and the YEC team was unable or unwilling to interact with or deal with the scientific evidence or the Biblical evidence. I came away from the YEC essays with a profound feeling of disgust at how so many Christians can be seduced by this blatantly false ideology.But the book does one better: rather than casting the debate as strictly old earth vs. young earth, the book gets to the heart of the problem: how is the Bible rightly interpreted? Proponents of the Framework theory point out that the Bible is a literary account of creation, not a scientific one, and debates about how old the earth is may be scientifically interesting, but they simply aren't Biblically relevant. The Bible doesn't tell us how old the Earth is - it tells us that God created us in his image to love and know him, and man is lost because of disobedience.I was raised, like many, to believe in Creation Science, but immediately I was unconfortmable with the position. The old-earth or "Day-Age" theory appealed to me, but I never felt that theory was 100% right. I am not a scientist, and I cannot debate the fine points of geology or chemistry. I do, however, have a degree in literature and an advanced degree in Writing. When I applied the techniques of my own discpline to Genesis, I arrived at the Framework view. The Genesis story has plain symbolic elements (e.g., the Snake), and from a literary standpoint, it's a parable. It is not against a "literal" interpretation of the Bible to say that a portion of the Bible with obvious symbolic elements is, well, symbolic. Even the most literalistic among us routinely recognizes this quality in other portions of Scripture, and even within Genesis 1 itself. (Relatively few people will argue that man really fell simply due to a talking snake...particularly since the Bible later informs us that the Snake was a symbol of Satan.) I'm glad that my insight was not an aberration, a

The Genesis Debate allows 3 pairs of scholarly authors to present (and dialog on) the 3 most widespread evangelical interpretations of the creation days. The presented views are the 24-Hour (young earth created in 144 consecutive hours), Day-Age (old earth created over 6 extended periods of time), and Framework (Genesis 1 is a literary expression of actual non-sequential creation events at some unknown time in history). The book format allowed each team to present their view, the other 2 teams respond to that presentation, and then the view presenter responds to the responses. This back and forth format was better than many similar multi-view books.Norman Geisler gives a very wise forward to the book. He states that "the creation-day debate is not over the inspiration of the Bible, but over it's interpretation...no one holding any of the views should be charged with unorthodoxy for the position he espouses in this volume...the Church needs to shift its focus to the real enemy - evolutionism - not to other forms of creationism that remain true to the historicity of the events recorded in Genesis". I think all believers involved in these discussions would be wise to heed Dr. Geislers advice and lower the intensity and frequency of their attacking of one another.The 24-Hour view based their arguments primarily on tradition. They went to great lengths to show how most interpreters in the early history of the church (pre-1800) held a view similar to theirs. They also presented a bible overview of various verses that speak of creation. The main weaknesses (pointed out by the other scholars) of their presentation is that tradition has been wrong in the history of the church. While tradition is important, if evangelicals/protestants thought it was the ultimate authority then the reformation would never have occurred. The second weakness of their presentation was that their Bible overview had virtually nothing that contradicted the other two views. The verses basically all supported the concept that God performed special creation (something the other two views agree with).The Day-Age view based most of their arguments on how well scientific discoveries correlate with the sequence of events in Genesis 1. The science presented was very convincing. Unfortunately, neither of the other 2 teams had the knowledge or inclination to dialog on any of those issues (other than a few feeble attempts to instill doubt in the scientific evidence). Perhaps another book where the 24-hour vs. Day-Age view, focussing primarily on scientific evidence, would be good. Another major facet of this presentation was to show how various Hebrew words have multiple meanings (e.g. yom - 24-hours, daylight period, or unknown period of time). There was some good dialog, especially between the Framework and Day-Age teams, on these lexical type issues.The Framework view (surprising to myself) was actually the most interesting. They went into great depth of exegesis on Genes

Critique:Each of the three pairs of authors have contributed something vital to the Genesis 1 discussion for which they should be commended and thanked for their time and effort. Duncan and Hall have rightly reminded the reader of the dangers that conformity to the present age presents to every generation. Their appeal to past interpreters further reminds us of the dangers of "novel" thinking and the importance of an orthodox consensus. Ross and Archer bring with them an arsenal of scientific understanding that has been used by the unbelieving community to attack the Bible and have sought to use it in support the Bible. They have found no reason to reject the Bible in the name of science. Their efforts affirm that the Bible can be reasonably interpreted without compromising inerrancy or a critically scientific mind. Irons and Kline offer a strongly textual argument reminding the reader that the Genesis 1 text had and has primarily a theological and a literary meaning. By offering an exegetical and theological argument that leaves ample room for secondary apologetic considerations. Of the three arguments presented, the strongest by far is the framework view. Irons and Kline have put together an impressive work of exegesis and theological erudition that places the biblical text in its proper place without snubbing a literal treatment of the text or sidelining the concerns of science. On the other hand, Duncan and Hall do not present a unified and exegetically convincing argument. Too much rests upon the lexical use of a single word divorced from a broader context. Ross and Archer similarly offer a minimal amount of exegetical work and only that for which accommodates their pre-commitment to make science fit the textual data. Presuppositions become clear in this discussion. The 24-hour view and the day-age view appear to come to the text with a strong commitment to something other than letting the text speak for itself. Duncan and Hall even chide Irons' and Kline's work for doing this. Yet the chiding reveals that they themselves have not done this. Duncan and Hall are set against a conformist's view and see anything less than a belief in their view as a compromise to worldliness. But the accusation only stands if the biblical text demonstrates their view convicingly. And while in actuality it might, it does not in their presentation. Their constant appeal to church tradition rather than a fully orbed exegesis appears to show a failing in their argumentation. Other voices have to shore up where textual evidence has fallen short.Ross and Archer show a pre-commitment even more strongly than Duncan and Hall. They are unabashed about their belief in certain facts of science as irrefutable, requiring the text to accommodate for them. They assert that general revelation ought to share a proper place alongside special revelation. But in practice, it seems that general revelation is taken as "fact" whereas special revelation is subject to interpretation and

Mention evolution at a party and one can instantly polarize a room full of people. There will likely be a handful of people who don't believe in evolution, who will find themselves relegated to the party's margin. The Kansas State Board of Education discovered this very thing when they deleted macroevolution from the state's science education standards. They believed their decision to let local school boards decide whether or not to teach macroevolution was rather innocuous. Instead they found themselves alone at the party. Most people have strong beliefs regarding evolutionary theory, but in many cases these beliefs are based on feelings rather than on knowledge or study. With the exception of a high school biology class, few people know the details of evolutionary theory or keep up to date on the latest science. This same notion can be applied to people's knowledge of the book of Genesis, strong feelings, but little grasp of details or themes.Just as the evolution debate has heated up this past year so has the debate about the book of Genesis. The view that the days of creation were literal twenty-four hour days is prevalent amongst Evangelical Christians. So prevalent that many Evangelicals now equate this interpretation as orthodoxy. But this interpretation does indeed have competition. Creeping competition that challenges the traditional view of the creation account. The Genesis Debate takes on this topic, and presents three interpretations of Genesis's creation account.In The Genesis Debate six scholars present to us a written discourse of their disputed interpretations of Genesis's creation account. Specifically their debate centers on whether the "days" of creation were literal twenty-four days. The two scholars who champion the traditional Twenty-four Hour view are J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall. Hugh Ross and Gleason L. Archer pitch the "Day Age" view. This view states that the each day of creation is an age of unspecified duration. They further believe that these ages dovetail perfectly with the latest scientific data. Lee Irons and Meredith G. Kline, present perhaps the most novel interpretation of Genesis. They call it the "Framework" view. The Framework view takes a non-literal interpretation of the creation account. The Genesis Debate is organized into three sections. Within each section one view is given an opportunity to present their case. Then the opposing views critique that view. Each section is concluded by a response to the critiques by the view presented in that section.The first view presented is the Twenty-four Hour view. Two distinguished scholars, J. Ligon Duncan III and David W. Hall, make the case for interpreting the days of creation as seven twenty-four hour time periods. Duncan and Hall's knowledge of church history and the Bible are formidable. They make it abundantly clear that throughout the history of Christianity, most church leaders have believed the days of creation to be l