Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to review traditional and non-traditional interpretations of Genesis 1. For a better understanding of what they mean, their description will be given, as well as a brief interpretation. The traditional interpretation of the book of Genesis 1 includes views that indicate that events occurred within a limited, precise period and are not tied to days.
At the same time, an unconventional interpretation implies the well-known theory that God created the world in six days and 24 hours. Many scientists and researchers have recently revived interest in creationism. The results of the study showed that Young Earth Creationism is an unconventional theory of interpretation of Genesis 1, which cannot be confirmed. In this regard, it seems reasonable to follow scientific studies that explain the age of the planet.
Overview of Young Earth Creationism
Some newer theories of interpretation are similar to ancient Near Eastern myths and interpret Genesis 1 as a conceptual aspect. In this vision, it precedes either verse 2 or verse 3. This thesis appears to be an introduction to the fact that God created the heavens and the Earth, which was formless. However, the literal interpretation approach is more complex, as it requires a more rigid definition of time frames, such as evening, morning and afternoon. These time concepts are responsible for the times of the day corresponding to them and for their beginning, middle, and end. In addition, it envisions creation as a precise process with a strict time frame of six days or 24 hours. This unconventional approach to interpreting Genesis 1 is called Small Earth Creationism.
Young earth creationism is a variant of creationism characterized by the concept of an early age of the Earth and the universe, consistent with the literal interpretation of the Old Testament, including the words of the first chapter of Genesis about the six days of creation. Usually, young earth creationists consider this age to be approximately 6 or 7.5 thousand years, according to various church traditions (de Berg et al. 2020). In contrast, old-earth creationists accept modern scientific estimates of the age of the Earth and the universe. This is the primary and most significant difference in this unconventional approach to reading the first book of Genesis.
In addition to a clear time frame for the creation of the Earth, the theory of Young Earth creationism explains logically how the differences in interpretations appeared. A significant period differs because the translation of the Hebrew word day has been done in different ways and, because of this, has different connotations in traditional views. In Young Earth Creationism, Creation Week is taken literally as a creation period and historical sequence. This is explained by the fact that it is possible to trace a clear order of actions during that period. For each particular day, their actions and, accordingly, new creations fall in the form in which they occurred. The history of Young Earth creationism can be traced back to the 1820s when the Comparative Estimate of Mineral and Mosaic Geology and Biblical Geology (Ranalli, 2021) were published in England. Young Earth Creationists became known in early Victorian times as biblical geologists through these books.
Response to Young Earth Creationism
Consideration of the temporal processes described in Genesis 1 requires a careful, critical approach. Careful consideration should be given to why people believe some of the claims that the Earth is younger than scientists believe. One of the problems with the theory is that the belief in the world’s creation in six days may not be consistent with the belief in a recent creation. In this context, literal days mean periods, which means 24 hours. At the same time, non-literal days mean any other interpretation of a day as a unit of measurement for the period of the creation of the Earth (Moore, 2020). The sequence of events is observed with the same accuracy, which is not surprising since the interpretation is literal and correlates with each of the six days.
There are different approaches to whether theologians should approach Genesis 1 literally or figuratively. The hermeneutic principle states that if there is no good reason to treat scripture figuratively, it should be taken literally (Oliverio, 2020). This means that if people understand the meaning of what is written, then there is no reason to try to think of other meanings for the words. The word day in Genesis, instead of any other, suggests that it was a day in the usual sense for us of this word. However, the lack of a clear definition of the word Yom suggests a definition of a period more significant than a day (Riley and Rimmer, 2021). This means that Yom has unique linguistic and conceptual connections that may suggest legitimate interpretations of the word. In this case, the literal understanding of this period of time as a 24-hour day is incorrect because linguists cannot know whether this is the definition of a day in our understanding.
The literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is intended more to limit the meaning of a thought form that does not include the true historical meaning. Since there is no specific literary genre for Genesis 1, this inconsistency supports a non-literal method of interpretation (Crawford, 2018). In addition, if people turn to the meaning of what is written in the book, some details can be noticed that may indicate the passage of a long time. It can be seen that the Biblical time frame changes significantly throughout the story from the age of creation to Noah’s flood. The differences in time frames can be seen in the example of the creation of Adam and his subsequent activities.
After his creation, Adam began to give names to all the animals he saw based on their prominent features. At the same time, the study of the structure of each animal required time, which clearly would not have been enough if people had considered the literal interpretation (Lyon, 2019). At the same time, it was necessary to study the behavior of animals to make sure that these names are suitable and define their essence. The concept of Young Earth Creationism requires significant changes in Christian doctrines, which cannot be implemented.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be noted that Young Earth creationism has not been proven throughout its existence since the literal interpretation creates many contradictions with current scientific theories. In this regard, it is logical to follow scientists’ definition that the Earth is older than in the view of the Young Earth creationists. It can be assumed that the concept of one day was invented to succinctly express any period of time that was supposed to mean the creation of something. As part of the study of this issue, many sources were considered, and the information studied gives reason to assume a non-literal interpretation of the days. However, such a concept has failed because it requires a profound rethinking of the processes of the Earth’s development in a historical context. Such changes cannot but affect how followers will perceive such a theory. Accordingly, traditional and non-traditional interpretations of Genesis 1 can be said to reflect weakened conceptions of timelessness.
Bibliography
Crawford, Cory. “Light and Space in Genesis 1.” Vetus Testamentum, vol. 68, no. 4, 2018, pp. 556–80. JSTOR, Web.
de Berg, Kevin C., and Robert K. McIver. “Beliefs About the Creation of the World Among Teachers in Adventist Schools in Australia and the Solomon Islands.” 2020. Web.
Kakos, Spyridon I. “Copernican principle as a philosophical dogma defining modern astronomy.” International Journal of Theology, Philosophy and Science 2.3, 2018, 13-37. Web.
Lyon, Jeremy D. “Genesis 1: 1–3 and the Literary Boundary of Day One.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 62, no. 2, 2019: 269-285
Moore, James R. “13. Geologists and Interpreters of Genesis in the Nineteenth Century.” God and Nature, pp. 322-350. University of California Press, 2020. Web.
Oliverio, L. William. “Theological hermeneutics: Understanding the world in the encounter with God.” The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal theology. Routledge, 2020. 140-151.
Ranalli, Chris. “What is deep disagreement?.” Topoi 40.5 (2021): 983-998. Web.
Riley, W. B., and Harry Rimmer. “A Debate.” Creation-Evolution Debates. Routledge, 2021. 395-425.