THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION
Cecil Hook

Last week Lea and I visited the Space Center in Alamogordo, New Mexico which boasts of a planetarium the likes of which there are only nine others in the world. We viewed with awe the presentation depicting how scientists believe the universe began and how the features of the earth were shaped. The realism of the projections make some viewers airsick. It was an unforgettable highlight of our vacation.

There was a time, however, when such a presentation would have made me sick— not airsick, but soul sick. It would have been shocking and unsettling to me and I would have rejected it in its entirety. The program, called “Genesis”, spoke of creation and ended with Neil Armstrong’s dramatic reading of Genesis 1:11 as he viewed the distant earth rising over the horizon of the moon, but it did not limit the time of creation to six twenty-four hour days six thousand years ago.

By instruction, posters, and art work our children are impressed from their earliest Bible class experiences with the contention that God made the universe in six literal days about four thousand years B.C. I am convinced that our well-meaning teachers do our children a disservice by such teaching. It is good that they instill belief in the children that God created the universe, but it is regrettable that in the same process they put a scientific stumbling block in the path of their faith.

Our literal interpretation of the creation account collides with scientific interpretations. We have made it an either/or proposition; if we accept one interpretation, we must reject the other. So, often faith is shaken in those who accept scientific conclusions. Instead of holding our views of both science and the Bible as interpretations to be studied for harmony, we have accepted our Biblical interpretations as ultimate truth which must displace any scientific interpretation which varies from it.

More needs to be said about our claimed literal interpretation of Genesis. We are not so literal except in the points that we are hung up on. Is a snake subtle, having a reasoning intellect like a man? If it could reason, could it talk without a voice box? Could Adam and Eve eat knowledge? Did they have knowledge of good and evil before eating the forbidden fruit? Was Adam endowed with unlearned speech, language, information, and experience? Was he given tools and knowledge to dress the garden? Were Adam and Eve given a culture at the time of their creation? Were they given vessels, cutlery, scissors to cut their hair, and a nail file? If they were given this culture and knowledge, how can we account for the loss of this practical knowledge like the use of tools by aboriginals later in history? Can man hear God walking? Does a snake eat dust? Did the tree of life die? What became of the Garden of Eden? Adam’s need for food indicates that his body would consume and expend energy. Would he have died before the fall without food?

When we face these and other similar questions, our literal approach to Genesis begins to evaporate, leaving us high and dry.

I do not claim to have all the simplistic explanations, but that is not alarming because my salvation in no way depends upon understanding of scientific data. The Genesis account is intended to create faith and awe in us toward an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Creator and God rather than giving us soul-saving scientific facts.

“Each has an interpretation” and is usually eager to impose it. Mine differs from others which I have read concerning the creation account. If you will indulge me, I will state it briefly for what challenge it may offer you. Surely, you do not have to accept it.

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Every atom of every element brought into existence from nothing is included in that first sentence of the Bible. That was the creation—period! All the creative acts described in the six day periods were but the arranging of these material elements and endowing with life from the Original Life. It is similar to the housewife who creates/makes a cake. She makes a new arrangement of existing materials. When this elemental creation took place and how long the process took is not revealed. It was in the beginning of creation, not in the beginning of existence, for the existing Spirit had no beginning. Whether God took a moment or billions of years is neither revealed nor relevant.

Now that the universe is created, the reader’s attention is directed to changes taking place on the earth. It is still molten hot so that it is waste, void, and shapeless with all of its moisture in steam and vapor shrouding the surface in darkness and with turbulent winds caused by the heat.

In the cooling process the clouds thinned so that light could filter through. Let there be light on the earth. Light was not created then, for the universe had millions of suns, but it penetrated to the earth’s surface. Continued cooling and further thinning of the atmosphere allowed for distinction between day and night due to its rotation. More cooling allowed the moisture to form clouds with sky between them and the earth. The condensed moisture gathered on the cooled surface of the earth and, because of the upheavals of the earth’s crust, separated from the land to form seas. By natural process it would require more than a day for the water to drain off the continents. By all this process God has now made the earth ready for life and habitation. God could have done this in a few hours, but he could have let natural processes work for millions of years to bring it all about. He is still its creator.

On the third day God brought forth vegetation producing seed and fruit after its kind. And it was so! These were truly fast producing plants if they brought forth seed and fruit after their kind in twenty-four hours. Literal interpretations overlook this point, but reproduction was demonstrated on what is called the third day.

Whether God put the earth in orbit around the sun on the fourth day or actually formed the sun and moon then is not of importance. It seems more likely that He set them in the heaven for signs then in the same sense that He set the rainbow for a sign in Genesis 9:13. He called a special attention to the rainbow rather than altering the way that light is refracted. So He gave special meaning to the sun and moon.

On the fifth day the fish and fowl were created and charged to multiply after their kind and swarm, which they did. The length of time and process of forming them is not the emphasis. Again, the reproductive process bringing swarms of marine life would require more than a literal day.

The same can be said about the reproduction of cattle and beasts on the fifth day.

Whatever the length of the sixth day was, it gave time for God to pass all the animals and fowls in review before Adam that he might name them. This was before Eve was made for him (Gen. 2:18-22). Could Adam possibly have named each of the thousands of species of animals and fowl in twenty-four hours?

The creation account in Genesis actually follows the same general pattern set forth in scientific theory. Science tries to define the natural process but the Bible does not describe the process. Literal interpretation claims instantaneous creation allowing for no process of development. Truly, God could have created and formed the universe and all that is in it in ten seconds. Or he could have taken ten billion years. If God let natural laws which he ordained work in the process of developing and forming the universe, does that detract from his power?

Since God was establishing a natural order, it seems only reasonable that he would have let it operate from the beginning. For example, the light from M 33, the nearest star group outside our Galaxy, could have been made to reach earth instantly, or natural law could have allowed 850,000 years for it to reach us. What purpose could have been served by suspending the natural law concerning the speed of light in this instance?

One of our problems has been in trying to define a method that God used when the Bible does not give us that information. The next problem has been in making that interpretation a matter of faith. Our inconsistency is evident in disclaiming any accommodative language or literary style in the Genesis account while we attempt a literal interpretation only of the areas on which we have become hung up.

You may contend that my explanations are weak and destructive to faith. I believe that such an approach will make faith easier by avoiding unnecessary scientific obstructions to faith. It has been a strengthening approach for Lea and me and our children, and I am convinced that the same can be true with you and your children. —1350 Huisache, New Braunfels, TX 78130