Today, we encounter a wide variety of interpretations of Genesis 1, verse 1, down to chapter 2 and verse 3, a passage which, in fact, some take to chapter 2, verse 4, and the first part of that, which I'll mention the discussion on in a few minutes. We face a wide variety of interpretations of this passage, as well as a variety of evaluations of its worthiness of our belief. I aim in this paper to treat these matters from the perspective of discourse analysis, which aims at achieving what is called ancient literary competence. That is to say, I aim to read this text in a way a competent original reader would have done, one of the original readers for whom Moses wrote this passage. to the best that we can reconstruct that competence. This is, after all, what we should be after when we pursue the so-called literal interpretation. And it makes no pre-commitments to excluding such things as figurative descriptions, anthropomorphisms, exaggerations, and so on. When we say that we want the literal interpretation, we ought to mean that we care about the meaning the author intended. We should ask, what would a competent reader from the original audience have got from this text? As I say there now, this puts no requirements on us, say, for excluding such things as figurative descriptions, anthropomorphisms, exaggerations, and so forth. Instead, we try to follow the conventions of the particular literary form that we are studying. And you can consult the Oxford English Dictionary on this. And that's that's the guidance that I'm following that of the OED. And and honestly I do believe that that is after all the issue more than other things is what do we mean by literal and what ought we to mean. This means, among other things, that we must make the best use that we can of grammatical studies, especially as they reveal the patterns of usage related to communicative intent, some of which we will get into. That's called discourse grammar. And that we should assume that competent readers in the original culture have a leg up on us when it comes to deciding between competing interpretations. And thus it matters a great deal, even apart from the matter of inspiration, it matters a great deal to us how Later, biblical authors would use an earlier author's material. Of course, the ancient Hebrew reader was not faced with some of the questions that we must ask in our day, at least not in the terms that we ask them, such as how we should relate this to what we call science today and what this tells us about the age of the earth. We may find a way of answering these questions that is true to the text, but we will only do so by first bracketing out those questions. To begin with, the reader needs to make a genre decision. That is to say, is this narrative? Is it exposition? Is it exhortation? Is it eulogistic poetry? Lament? Or is it something else? And of course, it's not difficult to ascertain that here in Genesis 1, 1 to 2, 3, we have narrative. The main verb usage is the tense that is called the vayik-tol, called by some the vav-consecutive or the preterite. However, to say that does not answer every question as to the way the text will refer to things outside of itself, such as its historicity or what we would call somewhat prejudiciously, prejudicially scientific detail. We'll come back to this shortly, but for now, at least we have enough to go on. And as we read this passage and consider the context of Genesis 1 to 3, in which it occurs, a number of individual interpretive decisions face us. And the way we answer these questions about these interpretive decisions will shape our integrated reading of the entire text. And for your sake of putting them up on the wall, try to get as many of them visible as possible. These questions include, is the first pericope, Genesis 1, 1 to 2, 3, as in the traditional Hebrew text, or is it 1, 1 to 2, 4a, as many scholars, both conservative and critical, take it? Secondary of question are questions about the interpretation of verses 1 and 2 of chapter 1. What is the relationship of verses 1 and 2 to verses 3 and following? What is the correct translation of verse 1? What action does verse 1 denote? Is it antecedent to the rest of the account, or is it a summation of the entire pericope? What is the relationship of 1.1 to the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, creation from nothing? Then moving on, we have the question of chapter 1 and verse 3. God said, let there be light. Does that necessarily depict what I call the ontological origin of light? Does it necessarily do so? We have the same question with the heavenly light bearers on the fourth day in verses 14 and following. Does it necessarily depict the ontological origination of these things? The matter of the extended surface or the firmament or the expanse, depending on which translation you are using. What in the world is that? How should we interpret the terms heaven and earth in this account? Shamayim and Eretz in Hebrew. heaven or sky, earth or land. I mentioned verses 14 to 17 is the focus of the first pericope, the creation of man, verses 26 and 27 of chapter one, or is it the divine Sabbath of the first three verses of chapter two? We have questions about the refrain that runs through this chapter. What is the correct translation of the refrain? What is the significance of the refrain? How do the semantics of that word yom, day, figure in. Does the refrain suggest either sequence or extent of time? And what shall we make of the absence of the refrain in the seventh day? We have questions about the relationship between the first and second pericopes, namely 1-1 to 2-3 and then 2-4 to 25. We also have questions on Chapter 2, verses 5 and 6. Dr. Harris has actually alluded to some of these issues. Is the word Eretz, land, in 2.5, is that earth, land, or region? Does the Lord have not made it rain, which it says there refers to earth history absolutely, in the sense that he had not ever made it rain since the beginning of the world, or is it simply prior to some particular rain or rainy season? A question that is perhaps unintelligible to those who spent all their lives in North America, but in a territory where you do have rainy seasons, it becomes intelligible, namely in the Middle East. And then also on that, how do the activities of 2, 4 to 25 relate to the days of 1, 3 to 2, 3? Another question is what is the depth with which Uh, Genesis two 17 threatens the man if he disobeys and does it get applied in Genesis chapter three. Now I want to focus on an integrated reading of this passage. Uh, so I will be unable to go into all the technical details to warrant each of my, to warrant each of my answers to the above questions. Instead, I shall have to refer you to my annotated translation and discussions of Genesis one to three, uh, in my Christian faith in an age of science. which is available as syllabus notes now, and eventually will come into publication. First, let's delineate the pericope. Many have noted that in Genesis 2 and verse 4, we have an elaborate chiasmus. These are the generations, as it starts off, of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. You have the heavens, the earth created, and you have made earth and heavens. You have in the second line the exact opposite order of what you have in the first line. And that means, first of all, we should not break it apart. The communicative function of a chiasmus is to unite its two parts with the context allowing us to ascertain what kind of unity the author has in view. That will mean, as a matter of fact, that I will dissent from the NIV, which includes 2.4.b as a part of the next paragraph. Instead, 2.4. as a whole, in my judgment, stands as a heading or a label for the second pericope, which then begins its narrative in verse 5. And the second conclusion we should draw from that is that we should take chapter 2, verses 5 through 25 as being in harmony. with 1, 1 to 2, 3. They are not competing creation accounts. This chiastic structure, which in terms of its vocabulary, I'm sorry I don't have time to go into elaborate detail here, but it points back to the first pericope and it also points forward to the rest of the narrative. You'll notice that the divine name changes in 2, 4b to the Lord God, which is the divine name consistently used in chapters 2 and 3 and very rarely used elsewhere in the Old Testament. Well, all of this will lead us to see that the first pericope is 1, 1 to 2, 3. And I will have to summarize my conclusions on the second pericope to say that it is an expansion of the sixth day and the sixth day only. And perhaps I will need to come back to that or perhaps come back to that on Thursday if someone asks me a question about it. And that's a hint. As we begin reading the Hebrew text, we must decide what is the meaning of verse 1. In the beginning, Traditionally translated, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And that's what we have to ask. Is it, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth as it's traditionally rendered? Or is it, as some more recent translations will argue, when God began to create the heavens and the earth? Now the accents in the Hebrew text certainly favor the first reading, the more traditional one. And this reading is reflected not only in the Septuagint, but also in the way that this verse is applied in John chapter 1 and verse 1. And indeed, since the biblical writers certainly do have a doctrine of creation from nothing, and I list some passages there, and they could not have got it with the second reading when God began to create, I do not see how there is much warrant for that second reading. So I shall take the traditional reading as the right one. Now we notice, then, that the verbs of verses one and two are not the storyline tense, the narrative tense, the vayik-tol, which I have mentioned. They're not the normal narrative tense. Instead, the verbs are in what's called the perfect tense. And the normal function of a verb form like this at the beginning of a narrative in the Old Testament is to give what is called background information. We then have to decide what is the time reference of that information. That is, is it a summary of the entire account, as some take it to be? For example, Bruce Waltke takes that position. Or is it instead action that is antecedent to the main sequence of events in the narrative? The main sequence of events in the narrative begins in verse three, which is where we have our first verb that is in the tense called the vayikthol. You will pick up on this in your English Bible where it says and God said that and is important In my judgment the fact that first of all verse 1 is connected with verse 2 is background and secondly it is hard to see where a doctrine of creation from nothing would come from if verse 1 were a summary points us to the conclusion that indeed these verses give the antecedent conditions at the start of the first day and Uh, this, uh, this, uh, I am insisting is a purely grammatical observation at this stage. Uh, the proper translation would then be, uh, for verse one, God had in the beginning created the heavens and the earth. Now, as for the earth, it was formlessness and emptiness and darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water. We can integrate this into a coherent reading when we come back in a few minutes to draw out the implications. of this. Next, in the work of the first day, we read of God's saying, let there be light, with the result that there was light. We may ask, we should ask, must these words be taken as describing the ontological origination, the coming into being of light, and previously there was none? As soon as we ask the question, though, we come to a halt. How we answer that depends on our larger reading of the pericope. of its style and its communicative purpose. Hence, we cannot answer the question just yet. We can only note that the words themselves allow for that interpretation, but they do not require it. We make the same observation about the heavenly light bearers in verses 14 to 17, the fourth day. The Hebrew verb that is translated made in verse 16, the Lord God, or sorry, it's God who made the Lightbearers in verse 16 does not of itself indicate that he originated the being of these items. When it is used for that purpose, it is the context and not the word itself which gives us that information. It can mean prepared or even just appointed. Further, the expression in verse 14, let there be need not denote their origins so much as their purpose. Let light bearers in the extended surface of the sky be for the purpose of marking the progress of the liturgical calendar. Now, I believe that Mr. Shaw is going to dissent from that analysis, and if we need to, I will discuss his dissent probably on Thursday, because I disagree with his disagreement, but that's what we're here for. The work of the second day involves the making of something traditionally called the firmament, but which could better be called the extended surface or the vast surface or something like that. I would definitely not recommend the translation dome or vault or canopy. The new revised standard version and other recent translations have made that particular move. I think that's far too explicit and it stems from a notion that we have here, a primitive world picture. Rather, this is a way of describing what we would call the atmosphere, as if it were, in the words of Franz Delitzsch, the semi-spherical vault of heaven stretched over the earth and its water. Notice I said, as if, and I've been able to document from the medieval Jewish commentators, namely David Kim Khee and Ibn Ezra for a very similar interpretation. Many have tried to take this as some sort of cloud cover, but the Hebrew does not invite such a reading since the word extended surface or firmament appears in places like Psalm 19 and verse 2 and Daniel 12 and verse 3 as a designation of the sky in the condition that we know it. Hence, we have a phenomenal description using a rare and perhaps a high level word, and that is significant, which we will come back to. You'll notice that I did not say poetic. And we'll have to talk about that later as well. We note several other things about the kind of description that we find in this text. For example, after verse 2, the account itself narrows the range of the words, heaven and earth, shamayim and eretz, narrows them to the sky, verse 8, that becomes the name of the firmament or extended surface, and to the land in verse 10, you'll notice that becomes the name of the dry the dry ground that separates from the waters, or that God separates from the waters. This, along with the status of verses 1 and 2, in which the initial creation event is dispensed with as background to the narrative, should help us to see that it would not be proper to call this account a cosmogony as such. Rather, its focus is on what we call this terrestrial ball. And this will also help us in interpreting chapter two in verse one, and the sky and the land and all their hosts name with their denizens were completed. It says nothing about the origin of angels. For example, another feature of the description that we have here is that it is suggestive rather than exhaustive. For example, the listing of land animals in verses 24 and 25 is not supposed to cover all the land animals that an Israelite pastoral nomad in the Sinai peninsula would encounter. Instead, it outlines them in three broad categories, namely domesticable animals, small animals, and larger wild mammals. The small animals would include lizards, mice, large spiders, and so on. The peak of this account, that is, the place that focuses the maximum interest in the narrative, is chapter 1 and verse 27. And God created the man in his image. In the image of God, he created him. Male and female, he created them. You will notice that you have there a three-fold repetition of the word created, and only the first of those three is in the tense called Bayiktol. The other two do not advance the narrative, but instead they restate this event. The parallelism of the lines, dwelling on the same thing and repeating it twice over. The divine self consultation that we had in verse 26 when God says let us make a man in our image And the fact that day six gets the most space in this narrative all show that this is the peak of the narrative this helps us to see that the communicative purpose of this account is to describe the preparation of the earth from the perspective of its being a habitation for humans to live and to serve their glorious creator and The third line, male and female he created them, also stresses that women as well as men are in the image of God. As we read the whole account, we're, of course, struck with the patterning by the six days of work followed by a divine Sabbath. But several things stand out from these features which are vital indicators of the proper interpretation. To begin with, we ask, what is the significance of that refrain? There was evening and there was morning the nth day. I will not here discuss the proper translation except to indicate that there is no warrant whatever for the King James Version which says the evening and the morning were the nth day. And if you want me to clarify that later I shall. The correct translation is and there was evening and there was morning the nth day. And when we ask that we must be asking what is the significance of evening followed by morning in the Hebrew culture for which Moses wrote this. The answer is simple. The evening and the morning are the end points of the nighttime. The Hebrew for that is Laila, nighttime. And if you want to reference numbers 9, 15, and 16, virtually define the night as the period between the evening and the morning. And the importance of the nighttime to the Hebrew was that the nighttime was the workers' daily rest, which, if God's plan had been followed, would anticipate the weekly Sabbath. Psalm 104, verses 22 to 23, speak of man going out to his work in the morning and coming back in the evening. Other passages speak that way as well. We notice further that the seventh day, God's Sabbath, has no refrain. And the simplest inference from this is that it has no end. Indeed, this inference is, in fact, the basis for such New Testament texts as John 5, verse 17, and Hebrews 4, verses 3 to 11. In Hebrews 4, verses 3 to 11, the author reflects on Genesis 2 and verse 2 and Psalm 95 and verse 11, much as Dr. Harris has already mentioned, with the rest that the author of Hebrews speaks of being the condition into which God entered in Genesis 2 and verse 2 and into which the believer enters by genuine faith. In John 5 and verse 17, Jesus has healed a man on the Sabbath for which the Jews would persecute him. As it says in verse 16, and then in 17, Jesus claims, my father is working up to now and I am working. And everyone knew that by my father, Jesus meant God. What is the implication of this? The implication is quite simple. If you must pay attention to the context of John chapter five, God is still working, even though it's his Sabbath and his son is warranted in doing likewise on the Sabbath. Augustine put it this way long ago. There is no mention of an evening in this day because in Augustine's words, because thou has sanctified it to an everlasting continuance. And what else do we find in the Pentateuch when it inculcates Sabbath observance in Exodus 23 and verse 12, the Israelites are to work for six days and cease from work using the verb that we find in Genesis two for cease or rest on the seventh day. that their animals may rest, using a different word, one that is more explicit about rest and getting refreshment, and also that their slaves and resident aliens may get refreshment, using a word that is even more explicit. These terms indicate getting physical rest because people and animals get tired. This is an agrarian culture after all. But then you look at Exodus 20 and verse 11, over six days God worked, and on the seventh he rested, using not the verb that we find in Genesis 2, but one of the verbs that we find in Exodus 23. And then in Exodus 31 and verse 17, Moses actually says that on God's Sabbath, he ceased and he got refreshment, which would indicate that somehow God got tired. We would not even dare to consider taking this language in a literalistic fashion. It is, of course, analogical language. We know from Isaiah 40, verses 28 to 31, that God not simply does not get tired, but he cannot get tired. Well, once it has become clear to the reader that God's Sabbath is not an ordinary day and that God's rest is not the same but analogous to ours, he will go back and read the passage looking for other instances of analogy. Then he will see what the significance of that refrain is. It, too, is part of an anthropomorphic presentation of God. God is likened to the ordinary worker going through his rhythm of work and rest and looking forward to his Sabbath. The days are God's work days, which need not be identical to ours, they are instead analogous. And in order to make it absolutely clear what I mean by that, By identical, I mean, in speaking of days being identical, I mean 24 hours long following in direct contiguous sequence. By analogous, I mean that they have a point of similarity with a basis in our experience by which we can understand something about God and his historical activity. Part of our expression of the image of God is in our copying of his pattern for our work week. Well, then the reader will put into this category the notices about God seeing that something was good. God saw the light that it was good. God saw the sky that it was good and the land and so on, that it was good. These speak as if God were limited by time and sequence like we are, but of course we know that he's not. will also not be surprised by similar phenomena in chapter 2 and verse 7, when it says the Lord God formed the man, that's using the terminology of the work of a potter. And then in chapter 2 and verse 22, God built the rib that he took from the man into a woman. Our versions terribly let us down there. They use things like made or fashioned or formed or something like that. The verb is built. God is being likened to a craftsman going through the efforts of his work week. Now I will have to, perhaps on Thursday morning, as I say, come back to the issue of 2, 5, and 6, and also 2, 17, the death, and how that relates to Genesis 3. I have separate discussions of that which are not included here. And if you ask me a question, I will discuss that. I believe that that will come up in Dr. Dyer's paper in particular. And so I think it will be necessary to come back to it. To summarize very briefly. The death in chapter 2 and verse 17 must be spiritual death, which has as its consequence their physical mortality. And I will give you the opportunity to ask me a question about that in order to warrant that. And that is in fact the way that Paul uses that terminology in Romans. Now we can proceed to a greater level of integration. We begin by asking, what is the communicative purpose of this pericope, Genesis 1, 1 to 2, 3? Well, factors that we've already noticed that will help us to answer this question include the fact that cosmogony as such is not its purpose, since the origin of the whole show gets dispensed with in one verse, which is background at that. We also note that as far as the grammar is concerned, the first day of the account need not be the first day of the universe. That is the Israelites who knew full well that the universe as a whole Sorry, that the universe is enormous and passages that indicate that would also have recognized that the universe as a whole is not the focus of this passage. And this comes out clearly as well when we recall our observations about the narrowing to sky and land, this terrestrial ball and about the peak as the focus of interest in chapter one in verse 27. From these, we conclude that the narrator wanted primarily to tell us about the making and shaping of the earth as a place for humans to live in fellowship with their maker. Is there any propriety in finding an historical intent in this account? If by historical, we mean what the word means in ordinary language, namely a record of something that the author wants us to suppose actually happened in the space-time world that we experience, then we need have no hesitation in calling this narrative historical. Indeed, it's subsequent users that record their view of it, and the Bible certainly took it that way. Old Testament and New Testament. And at the same time, as we acknowledge that, we should acknowledge as well that in saying the account is historical, we've not settled every question that we might ask about whether, for example, things are narrated in the order in which they occurred. or whether we have here a complete description, or whether we must apply a literalistic hermeneutic to the account. We are accustomed to recognizing that in the way we harmonize the Gospels. For example, we account for some of the differences by supposing that authors are free to organize by topical rather than chronological criteria, and this impinges not the least in the historicity of the Gospels. And what level of detail, sorry, if such matters that I've mentioned that are not settled, if such matters were not within the author's intent, we would not be cooperating with the author in pressing his words for such purpose. And as a believer, I hope my main intent is to cooperate with the intention of Moses that he has made clear. And what level of detail pressing does this narrative invite? Well, to begin with, we can remember that we've already observed that its description is geocentric and phenomenal, what it looks like from earth, and that it is suggestive rather than exhaustive, which means that its communicative purpose is different from what we would call natural history. We note further that the very kind of language used here is different from what we think of as ordinary Hebrew narrative. The more ordinary type of Hebrew narrative begins in chapter 2 and verse 5. The best term for this kind of language is exalted prose. By this, I mean that the language is higher than ordinary language, just as we find that the language of, say, a very traditional high church liturgy is noticeably different from the language we use on the street, and the difference is intentional. The language that's used here is stylized. It's very broad stroke and it is majestic. Neither sun nor moon get their ordinary names, nor are any animal species named properly either. We find unusual words such as that word firmament or extended surface and the unusual likening of the heavenly luminaries to lamps. The language is also rigidly patterned, which I've mentioned the days and the refrain for the days. The anthropomorphic description of God's activity also contributes to these effects. These features do not mean that we have non-referential language or that the events are in some way supra-historical. But they do urge caution in how we would correlate the statements here with how we would describe things, especially since we tend to describe things for other communicative purposes than the one that is here in this pericope. Well, several questions remain. Look how the time flies when we're having so much fun. But the first is, what do we make of Exodus 20 and verse 11, which many take as implying that the creation week was not only the first week of the creation, that is, of the universe, but that in fact it was of identical length to the week that we are familiar with. Exodus 20 and verse 11 is the most explicit reflection on the matters that we are considering here. And hence, we have to do our best to offer a grammatically sound interpretation of it. Here's my very literal translation in its context, the fourth commandment, in order to bring out clearly my observations. Remember the day of the Sabbath by keeping it holy. In the space of six days, you are to cultivate and work all your labor. And the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. You shall not work any labor, you and your son and your daughter, your manservant and your maidservant and your livestock and your resident alien who is in your town's gates. For in the space of six days, the Lord worked on the sky and the land, the sea and all that is in them. And he rested on the seventh day. We need to make several notes on the words which in my manuscript are italicized, namely the traditional in six days for verses nine and eleven. Six days you are to cultivate and work all your labor, and in six days the Lord made, is the traditional interpretation. Grammatically, it's what's called an adverbial accusative of extent of time, and would be better translated over the course of six days, or in the space of six days, if you insist on that. That's the first observation. Secondly, it is misleading to render the verb assah in verse 11 as made, as is traditionally done. which tends to imply ontological origination for English readers. Instead, this verb in verse 11 looks back to the same verb that's used in verse 9. I think traditional versions are, six days you are to work and do all your labor, or something to that effect. And that verb do is the same verb that is translated made in verse 11. The use of the verb then in verse 11 looks back to the same verb in verse 9. In the space of six days, you are to cultivate and work all your labor, which means that our work follows the divine pattern. And thus, this has nothing to do with ontological origination. Likewise, to render Hashemayim and Haaretz as heaven and earth, as our versions traditionally do, is misleading, since these words are narrow to the sky and the land in Genesis 1 itself. And in fact, when you have the sky, the land, and the sea, that tripartite division, that's a division that runs throughout the Pentateuch. And it is referring to the three parts of this terrestrial ball on which we live. And you'll notice that that's the terminology that is used in Exodus 20 and verse 11. And then finally, this text in no way sets up any identity between the length of our work week and the length of God's. Instead, the whole operates on the principle of analogy. Our work and rest are analogous to God, as I have observed already. Indeed, when it says, do all your work in verse 9 of Exodus 20, that word that's translated work there is the same word that's used in Genesis 2, verses 2 and 3 for God's work on the sky and the land, the sea, and all that's in them. Franz Delitzsch makes the observation, when the name work is given to God's six days creation, human work is ennobled to the highest conceivable degree as being the copy of this model. And indeed that's right. The principle then that functions is one of analogy. And this in its turn helps to confirm what most see in the Genesis one account, namely the existence of sequence and of extent of time. over the course of six days certainly seems to indicate both sequence and extensive time. That is to say, whatever length those six days are, and whatever the degree of overlap and topical arrangement there may be in those six days, still they are what I call broadly sequential and they extend over some span of elapsed time. The sequentiality comes from the combined effect of the use of the vayaktol verb tense for the main narrative events and also from the march of the numbered days. I will disagree with any attempt to invoke a pluperfect use of the vayaktol in this particular pericope. And if you have questions about the grammar of that, you can consult my essay in the Tyndall Bulletin from 1995 on that particular grammatical point. This means that we should be content with the view that the activity of the first and the fourth day do not involve ontological origination of the principle of light and of the light bearers respectively. And hence we need not find them as being somehow out of sequence, which is what the framework view argues. Another question which needs answering comes from the fact that the passage invites us to read it as historical. And at the same time, the level of description lends itself to a moderate to low level of concordance with what we today call science. What then is the kind of concordance we may expect? If we want to be blunt, as I know some of you would like to put it bluntly to me, what is a truth claim the text makes that we could test? In my view, this will come primarily in the kinds of divine action that are involved. God is active. God is active, of course, in every event. That is a point in theology. But he's active here in Genesis 1, 1 to 2, 3. both in his upholding of the things that he made along with their properties called ordinary providence and second causes in our literature. And he's also active in producing special supernatural effects as well. This comes out in two ways, especially in the presence of the spirit of God in chapter one and verse two, a supernatural agent and in the places where God expresses a wish, which is then fulfilled. Let there be thus and so. And it indeed happens. In my judgment, this indicates that we should expect there to be detectable gaps in the created economy because of the existence of what we may call intelligent design or imposed design, which I think is a better phrase for what people in the intelligent design movement mean. For example, the capacities that you and I have by virtue of being in the image of God are not properly explicable as the natural or even ordinary providential outgrowth of any capacities in the lower animals. That you see is the position of theistic evolution, that by the operation of second causes upheld by divine providence, you would get from molecules to mankind in an unbroken chain. But as a matter of fact, I think this passage would lead us to believe otherwise, and everyone's observation falls into line fairly easily with what this passage leads us to believe, that the capacities that you and I have are not properly explicable that way. They are instead a result of the supernatural formation of man recounted in 126 and 27 and also 27. Other gaps that we would expect to find would be the origin of the universe, the origin of life, probably as well the origin of the diversity of life on this planet. It is these supernatural events which God worked in space and time which have left their mark on the creation and they invite everyone to receive their testimony to their maker. I summarize my results as follows. I promise that I do summarize. As follows, exegesis favors the conclusion that, first of all, Genesis 1.1 and 2 are background, representing an unspecified length of time prior to the beginning of the first day. Do not, by the way, confuse that with what is called the gap theory. I have a critique of that, which I don't believe that time will allow me to get into. We'll see. When Dr. Pipus stands up and rushes forward, that's when I'll stop. Secondly, the six days represent periods of God's special or supernatural activity in preparing and populating the earth as a place for humans to live, to love, to work, and to worship. Thirdly, the days are God's work days. And these days are analogous and not necessarily identical to our work days. And they are structured for the purpose of setting a pattern for our own rhythm of rest and work. which includes the weekly rest of the Sabbath, the glory of everyone's week, I hope, and in particular, in view of Hebrews 4, it is public worship on the Sabbath day into which we most nearly come into contact with the divine rest and tranquility. A fourthly, length of time, either for the creation week, or before it, or since it, is irrelevant to the communicative purpose of this account. This position is compatible with Old Earth creationism, but does not require it. I suppose if you wanted to press it, it is also compatible with some forms of Young Earth creationism, but it does not require that either. It simply declares that these questions are outside the communicative intent of the author. It is definitely not compatible with naturalistic theories of origins or what I described as theistic evolutionary theories of origins, either, because of the stance that this view involves on divine action. The strengths of this position come from, first of all, its basis in a literary and discourse-oriented reading of the text. That might not mean much to you if you're not familiar with some of the discussions, but a few years ago, for example, James Barr published a book, James Barr of infamous reputation, and perhaps an infamous quote that he has given about the creation days will be raised in the discussion later as well. But he pointed out that Old Testament scholarship has long known, he says, that we cannot read Genesis 3 as Paul did. meaning covenant headship, the representative fall into sin of our first parents, and so on and so forth. However, the application of these techniques that I have called discourse and literary techniques to Genesis 3 in a work that is still under development, but will eventually see the light of publication, shows that as a matter of fact, Paul got it right. I hope everybody here is relieved by that. Paul got it right, of course. There are details in the Hebrew which clearly and unequivocally show that you have Adam, and specifically Adam as a male, as the head not only of his family but of humanity, and consequences as well. If you were to look at Paul's reading of the creation narrative as it applies to male and female relationships as well. So it encourages me to see that such approaches to the Old Testament narrative in fact vindicate Paul and what he had to say. That's the first point. It's basis in a literary and discourse-oriented reading of the text. Secondly, the fact that no semantic or grammatical innovations are employed. Now, that might sound unusual to you since I've said, well, I don't agree with our traditional version. But in terms of what I've actually done, I have used documented work in the lexica and in the grammar books, a few things that I myself have published and in referee journals as well. But I think that does present a hardship for the traditional version of the day age view, as a matter of fact. I think that it has a semantic problem, which I will not have the time to talk about. And then thirdly, this interpretation, in my judgment, accounts for all the details of the text. And it may be convenient here to summarize what I see as a teaching of Genesis 1 as a whole. on creation. The best way to do that is to use the catechism question, what is the work of creation? The catechism author said that God made all things from nothing by the word of his power, which would include his historical supernatural actions, in the space of six days. And though there are difficulties in interpreting those days, some of the specifics are not clearly relevant either to Genesis 1 or to the theological point being made. And then fourthly, all very good, where sin and dysfunction are alien to the creation as it came forth from God. That's our contribution to the world as it is. And we might add to the catechism, if I dare do so, he made it so that it bears his imprint. Psalm 19 and verse 1 speaks of the testimony of the creation is, but specifically to the believer. Then Romans 1 verses 19 and 20 from the pen of Paul tells us that it gives that testimony, in fact, to every human being. Well, I believe that time does not allow the final area of discussion. And I'll simply have to leave you with this slide. There is a spectrum of views, of alternative views of the creation days. Among those, in fact, who affirm the truthfulness of the biblical account, in fact, who would affirm what I have just said based on the shorter catechism a minute ago. There's a range of positions on just what those six days are. We may break this range down with the following types, and they are in fact types. And they start up there with view number one in the first category that the earth and usually the universe must be young, the order of magnitude 10 to 15,000 years or say six to 15,000 years. And that would be what I've called the literalist interpretation. I don't know what the best word is for it. And you can see some of the prominent representatives of that view. The second broad category point B is that the earth and the universe need not be young. Notice that it's not it's that they're not young, but they need not be young. And this category two then is punctuated activity. You have 24 hour days of creative activity separated by indefinite periods. Question about whether William Ames held that view. He's been interpreted to hold that view. There is some discussion about the interpretation of what he says. But Newman and Eckelmann, Bob Newman and Herman Eckelmann, there is no question about the interpretation of what they say. That is their view. Then the Gap or Reconstitution view, the creation week is the remaking of the earth after a primeval rebellion. The earth became formless and void. That's crucial to the Gap view, which is why mine shares very little in common with it. But Thomas Chalmers of the last century held that view. The Schofield Reference Bible combines this view with view four, the day age view, where the days correspond basically to geological ages. And you have various refinements on that, such as Dr. Harris gave us, but you can see some of those who have held it. Buswell, E.J. Young was sympathetic to it. Machen held that view. Francis Schaeffer died without deciding between this view and view number one. My view here, number five, the analogical or anthropomorphic days. The days are God's work days, hence of unspecified relation to time as we experience it, but broadly consecutive and historical. But it's not just me. Augustine held a version of this view. Anselm held this view. Aquinas was sympathetic to it. William Shedd of the last century, Franz Delitzsch, who in my judgment is the greatest Hebraist the Christian world has ever produced, articulates this view in his commentary on Genesis. and I come along as really an afterthought. And then number six, literary framework view. The days are a literary structuring device only and clearly non-consecutive. And this is too big of a grab bag, really, because the view of Klein, say, and Furtado is different in significant ways, say, from that of Waltke and Casuto. But you will see that you have very many prominent people in recent Genesis studies articulating that view as well. There are other ways of arranging the material, but I think these views have their strengths and their weaknesses, but I will argue and have run out of time to argue that this view five has the strengths of the other views and does not have the weaknesses of the other views. The other views do, in my judgment, suffer from serious weaknesses and I think I'm going to need to spare you my exposition of the weaknesses of these other views in order to conclude very quickly. Other related questions on the age of the earth, outside the scope of our discussion, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and verse 10. The communicative purpose of these genealogies is to describe the descent of the people listed. That's the first thing. Secondly, to illustrate the reign of death threatened on Adam and Eve. And then thirdly, to focus on the line of Seth. They observed the following conventions. Gaps are possible. Completeness is not necessary to their communicative purpose. The word beget can mean to become the ancestor of and then thirdly they are not used for any time computations and perhaps you want to discuss that as well in view of that statement by James Barr which I made reference to. Appearance of age issues. Some have supposed that we can explain the phenomena we see by saying that God created the universe with an appearance of age. This is basically a Concordist position of a very interesting sort. It says that the natural scientists really do show that the earth looks old, but it gives a different account than the scientists do of how this looking old came about. The view largely owes its origin to precisely the same issues as the day-age view did. In 1857, Philip Gosse had a book entitled Amphilos, that's the Greek word for navel. Did Adam have a navel, you see was the question. If he did, did he look old? It was historically an alternative to the day-age approach but was motivated by exactly the same factors. I myself do not find it theologically credible because it attributes deception to God's good creation. It actually also is circular. It assumes that the wording of the passages in this pericope designate instantaneous action, but as a matter of fact, our judgment of this claim depends on our overall reading of the text. The Hebrew words themselves are noncommittal on this point. But with my exegesis, I don't even have to address it. And then the matter of the flood. By the exegesis advocated here, the questions about the flood, did it happen, how long ago, was it universal, are all very interesting and very important to us all. But they are strictly exegetical questions with no impact on the matter of the age of the earth. That is to say, the ICR approach, which explains so much by flood geology, is based as near as I can tell, on a commitment to explain everything under the assumption that believing the Bible requires us to believe in a young earth. Under my exegesis, these questions lose their centrality because the Bible is not concerned with the age of the earth as such. Oh, we're going by your watch. I have ten minutes left, don't I? Two minutes. Well, let me just take a moment then to come back to Some of these things that I have alleged to be weaknesses in the literalist position, for example, or what you may call the six contiguous solar days view, quite simply, it promotes itself as the literal reading. But in doing so, it trades on what I consider to be an invalid understanding of what proper literality is. That, as I said, I believe is really our issue more than anything else. The search for a literal interpretation, as I've discussed, puts no prior constraints on us, for example, about the meanings of words or about sequentiality of all narrated events. And in my judgment, the literalism of this view utterly fails to treat the seventh day properly and fails to account for the way it is used elsewhere in scripture. It also treats this pericope as if it were not the exalted prose that it is. Further, it seems to identify what is an entirely proper critique of the naturalism that underlies conventional Darwinism. It identifies that critique, which I myself agree with, with a labeling of all other sciences as naturalistic or evolutionary if they do not agree with its position. It seems to do that, and when it doesn't, I am happy to acknowledge that. As I said, or maybe I didn't say, I am a an affiliate of Philip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement, which is, interestingly enough, a coalition of young-earth and old-earth creationists who have agreed that we are not going to make this particular issue the dividing line between us. As Professor Johnson likes to put it, we'll have a nice discussion about the interpretation of Genesis after we win. And so it need not, but in many cases it does, identify its critique with this labeling, which I reject. And finally, its representatives seem to favor the view that no animal died prior to the fall of Genesis 3. And in my judgment, this is based on a misinterpretation of Genesis 2 and verse 17, which you will have to ask me about on Thursday. The day age position, view four, This view down here, day, age, position, suffers from a serious semantic problem. I think most of you are familiar with it. The meanings of the word day. Yes, that's the five minute warning, right? I'll do a Dan Deardorff and just turn off the light. And I think there are no indicators in the text for that particular meaning, age, in the text. However, I want to take note of an argument that is frequently put forward in favor of the literalist reading. an argument which critical inspection shows to be invalid, namely the view that whenever the Hebrew word yom, or day, has a number in the rest of the Old Testament, it is a literal day. Therefore, these are literal 24-hour days here. In order to respect Dr. Piper, I will indicate to you that you can ask me on Thursday why I think that is an utterly invalid argument. And it is, in fact, a statistical fallacy. It is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy from statistics. And I would like to commend to you the book by Daryl Huff, How to Lie with Statistics, and his chapter eight on some of the pitfalls into which, in my judgment, that particular argument has fallen. I have given you my reasons on the others, and therefore, I think I will quit making Dr. Piper nervous, and I shall stop. Thank you very much.