My View of Creation
All of the research I have done seems to contradicts itself. One author says that we cannot reconcile this as being a literal six days, and should be considered as a theological understanding. While another commentator says we should look at them as literal days. I have always looked at them as literal days, even when to some it may seem illogical. With that being said both of the commentaries I read relate to the structure used in Genesis 1 as days, citing the evens as taking place on day one through day six.
According to Waltke, “Creation is divided into six days or “panels,” each following a basic process of creation.” He goes on further to explain, “…all the acts of creation follow a chronological framework. God does not create in time but with time. The week becomes the basic unit of time: six days of work and one of rest. The careful use of numbers throughout the account attests to God’s logical and timely shaping of creation.” Now John Walton helped to shine some light on the subject for me when he explained the usage of the Hebrew words for light and day. He says, “If God called light yom, why does the text continue throughout the Old Testament to call light ‘or? It is a question anyone could answer with a little bit of thought: it was not light itself that God was called yom, but the period of light.”
Once we have grasped the differences between the terms for day and light it helps to see how these were in fact literal days.
The Age of the Earth
My personal understanding of the age of the earth is that it is rather young, between 10k and 6k years old not millions of years old. I am not sure how one would be able to reconcile and old earth view with the chapters of Genesis 1-11. There is nothing in there to make us believe that the earth is older than genealogies mentioned in the book. When one reads the article by E.H. Hutten it becomes less clear the age of the universe and more clear that no one can ever really know. In his article Hutten argues that semantics plays a huge role in how we discuss the universe and then how things are aged. In all honesty we cannot make a solid argument for either stance apart from the genealogies of the Bible as to how old the earth is. If we don’t trust the Bible to be true than we can say that the earth is as old as we want, but if we do trust what is found in Scripture than we can assume the earth is younger than most people want to admit.
Is Adam a Historical Figure?
I believe Adam to be a historical man, mainly because I hold to the Bible being inspired and infallible. If Adam were not a real man than Scripture has told a lie and if that part is a lie things become slippery slope. Pate agrues,
By way of comparison, it is hard to conceive that the ancient Near East audiences considered their primal man/king as non-historical. What would be the point of basing one’s perspective of creation in an event that never happened and in a person that never existed, at least as far as the reader was concerned?
Also, the Apostle Paul believed in a historical Adam, in 1 Corinthians 15:45 he speaks of Jesus being the last Adam fulfilling all the things the first Adam was unable to do. Why would Paul a devout Jew compare a man he knew to be real to a fake person? It doesn’t add up, that is why I believe Adam is a real person. Also if Adam were not a real man then total depravity is not real, there was no original sin and without us having a sin nature Christ dying was pointless. This is only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
HUTTEN, E H. “The British Society for the Philosophy of Science” 6, no. 21 (2015): 58–61.
Pate, C Marvin. “Genesis 1-3: creation and Adam in context.” Criswell Theological Review 10, no. 2 (March 1, 2013): 3-25. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed May 11, 2015)
Waltke, Bruce K., and and Cathi J. Fredericks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids : Zondervan, 2001.
Walton, John H. Genesis. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.