Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One

Rating:
Summary: Very disappointing
Review: I am an old-earth creationist, and I learned Aramaic under John Sailhamer (one of the authors addressed in this book), so I was interested to hear what Jordan had to say.

Unfortunately, what he had to say wasn't worth much. He denies the concept of general revelation, since his theological system doesn't allow God to reveal himself in any medium other than special revelation. To this end, he employs painfully bad exegesis to force the Bible to say what he wants it to say. For example, he reinterprets Psalm 19 ("The heavens declare the glory of God...") to be referring to pagan beliefs about the zodiac. "Heavens and earth" aren't a merism to refer to the entire physical universe in Gen. 1:1, even though that's what it refers to everywhere else in the Bible. And "the waters above" which God separated from the waters below actually refers to the "sea of glass" referred to in the book of Revelation!

Moreover, the subtitle, "A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One," is false and misleading. It is well known, and can be easily verified, that many of the early Church fathers believed that the days of creation were millennia (for example, see the Epistle of Barnabas, written sometime between AD 70 and 135).

Sailhamer claims that the idea that Genesis 1 is only describing God's creation and preparation of the "promised land" of Israel is a position held by several medieval rabbis. Jordan was unable to locate these references, so instead of actually communicating with Sailhamer, he just assumed that he was wrong, and even makes fun of his name! I don't agree with Sailhamer's position, but come one, show some respect! The man is one of the top scholars of Semitic languages of our day. By contrast, most of Jordan's references are to articles he's written himself, and published in his own newsletter.

Rating:
Summary: Essential book for much-needed reformation of Evangelicalism
Review: I am now translating this book into Japanese. It is aimed primarily at Evangelicals who affirm biblical inerrancy, yet also feel compelled to try to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the views of modern science. Older, discredited theories of this type -- the "Gap Interpretation" (or "Ruin-Reconstruction Interpretation": there is a gap of indeterminate time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which the world of a presumed pre-Adamite race was destroyed and then rebuilt) and the "Day-Age Interpretation" (each "day" is actually a vast amount of time) -- are glossed over; instead Jordan focuses on some of the newer theories now in vogue or coming into vogue among Evangelicals, such as John Sailhamer's "Limited Geography Interpretation," which says that the Genesis creation account actually describes the creation of the land of Canaan, not the whole world. Other Evangelicals interacted with include Bruce K. Waltke, Meredith G., Kline, C. John Collins, Paul H. Seely, Mark Futato, and C. Lee Irons.

As the book's title makes clear, Jordan doesn't think such approaches -- that pit the literary features of Genesis 1 against the plain historical and narrative sense of the text -- are viable. Rather, he thinks the people of God have been correct all along (i.e., for the past 3,000 years) in interpreting Genesis 1 as referring to the creation of the entire universe in six consecutive 24-hour days. He covers all the theories contrary to the traditional reading that are currently popular among Evangelicals and shows how none of them stand up to close scrutiny. He also shows how the presuppositions of unbelieving science make it a weak reed to lean upon, and drives home the point that modern Christians have been too credulous toward, and subtly influenced by, the constructs of unbelieving science, with the result that their worldview is partly orthodox and partly gnostic. ("Gnosticism" meaning a religious perspective that emphasizes Christianity as a religion of ideas rather than as a religion rooted in actual time-based historical events in the physical world.) If the historical factuality of Genesis 1 is suspect, then, ultimately, so is just about everything else that is said to take place in the Bible -- even, for example, the resurrection. Of course, no Bible-believing Christian wants to say *that*, but if the non-historical approach to Genesis 1 is legitimate, then there is no logical barrier to extending that approach to everything else. If all that the Genesis creation account tells us about the first Adam cannot be taken at face value, then what are we to make of statements like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ("For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.") or Romans 5:12-21 ("Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned . . . where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.")? Here we have core doctrines of the Christian faith that are based squarely on the historic factuality of the origin of mankind exactly as described in the Genesis creation account. Take away the historic factuality and the doctrines no longer have any basis, which is precisely why liberal and secular scholars don't believe in those doctrines. Too many Evangelicals are unwittingly trading away their birthright for a mess of respectability in the eyes of an unbelieving world, respectability which will never be granted in any case. Better that we take an uncompromising "hard line" like J. Gresham Machen, whose integrity in a previous generation won the admiration of an unbeliever like H. L. Mencken (If you haven't read Mencken's obituary of Machen in the January 18, 1937 Baltimore Evening Sun, you owe it to yourself to do a search on "Dr. Fundamentalis" and read it.)

There is happy irony, as Jordan shows, in the fact that the traditional "literal" reading of Genesis 1, which takes the whole account at face value as actual history, is also the approach best equipped to mine the full richness of the abundant symbolism and literary structures of Genesis 1. Yes, it is rife with symbols, and yes, it all actually happened just as it is written. Because God is the One at work, the Bible is fully capable of simultaneously being both symbolic and also historically accurate; there is no contradiction in maintaining both. Any reading that attempts to evade the historic factuality of the six-day creation account ends up obscuring much of the symbolism and literary structure of the text.

I decided to translate this book because gnosticism is a rampant problem in the Japanese churches, just as it is in the English-speaking world, and it is sapping the church of vitality. When something is stuck to one's face, one can be totally unaware of it until it is pointed out. The church is in such a predicament today. Gnostic tendencies unconsciously carried over from the non-Christian society around us are so thoroughly embedded in the fabric of modern Christian culture that we are largely unaware of the problem. If the Japanese translation of this book helps a few pastors and seminary students become more thoroughly biblical in their thinking, it will have been worth it.

Finally, to set the record straight: there is nothing less than respect for all of Jordan's adversaries in this book. Anyone reading pp.118-119 carefully will not conclude that Jordan denies general revelation. Jordan never denies "heavens and earth" refers to the entire physical universe; rather, he denies it is improper to treat "heavens" and "earth" separately. The other complaints against Jordan are spurious; e.g., even if Jordan had been able to locate the obscure medieval rabbis cited by Sailhamer, it wouldn't have significantly altered any of the book's conclusions. Also, argument from authority is a no-no.

Rating:
Summary: A significant defense in the Reformed tradition
Review: Jordan defends the traditional reading of the creation account with a command of biblical theology rarely encountered. But Jordan does more. He precisely and convincingly identifies exegetical errors in opposing positions. Moreover, he reveals the subtle influences of gnosticism and false assumptions of "science" which are behind modern interpretations. This is an outstanding contribution.--Rev.James Bordwine, Th.D. I highly recommend this book!

Rating:
Summary: Yet Another Fundamentalist Assault
Review: This book is an excellent guide to self discovery; A tool for attaining deeper knowledge of the self. Let's say, for instance that you thought the bok was relevant and scholarly, well then it is fairly obvious that you need to go to college, or in some way educate yourself.

Rating:
Summary: Starting with the bible...
Review: This defense of the biblical view of Creation focuses on the most basic thing: what the Bible says. If you are looking for a book dealing with strictly scientific issues, then don't buy this. However, Jordan goes after the real problem...those Christians who just won't accept what the Bible says. He critiques many of the views thought up to reconcile the Bible with the shifting sands of modern science (i.e. The Framework Hypothesis, The Day-Age Theory, etc.), and offers a vigorous defense of the traditional reading of the text (six, literal, 24-hour days). Jordan understands the most basic issue (Genesis 3)that warps our understanding of the most basic things.

While the book did contain some non-traditional views of other matters (i.e. Genesis incrementally revealed as the covenant book from Adam through Joseph), I would recommend this to anyone who seeks to understand what the issue really is: Indeed, did God say six days? YES!

Rating:
Summary: Wrong on all counts
Review: Young Earth Creationists seem so inexplicably ignorant about the damage their ideas cause to evangelism and the divisions their raw, conceited dogmatism cause within the Church that one wonders which deity these "creationist ministries" really serve. I have a degree in literature, a lifelong interest in theology, and an advanced degree in Communications - which makes me well-qualified to assess Jordan's argument. Jordan argues that believing in a literal 6-day creation within the last 10,000 years is the only possible reading of Genesis 1, and that anyone who interprets the text differently is trying to bend the Bible to fit science. I strongly disagree. Genesis 1 contains many obvious symbolic elements (e.g., the Snake represents Satan), and I am not aware of any genre of literature, produced in any culture, that mixes even the smallest element of allegory with an otherwise factual account of events. If Genesis 1 contains an allegorical element, it is purely allegorical - period. Many creationists are aware of this difficulty, and try to evade it by saying that there really was a talking snake in Eden. Like Jordan, they argue that the snake was possessed by Satan, and this supposedly resolves the discrepency between Genesis 1 and later Scriptures that say man fell at the suggestion of Satan. But this reading is pure nonsense. The Bible tells us that Genesis 1 is symbolic (and the Bible frequently uses a motif where a story or detail introduced in the books of Moses are re-interpreted in the prophets and/or the New Testament as being symbolic of Christ), and if God wants to begin the Bible with an allegory, who are we to say that he can't?

Jordan's supposedly "academic" interpretations of other portions of Scripture are bizarre and over-reaching. For example, rather than admit that the Bible uses human language that may not always be scientifically accurate, Jordan argues that the "firmament" of the sky described in Genesis 1 refers to the sea of glass in Revelation. A plain, straightforward assessment of the Bible is simply that the Bible uses common, human language when describing natural phenomena - for example, we often say "the sun rises" when if fact the sun revolves around the Earth. The Bible does likewise - for example, the ancient Hebrews called the sky a "firmament" or a "dome," and the Bible uses their language. There is no serious suggestion that the sky is made of glass or metal.

Jordan's arguments are so bizarre that I'm perplexed such a book was ever published. Let's stick with Intelligent Design and let Young Earth Creationism slip into the obscurity it merits.