When approaching Genesis 1, it is crucial to remember that it is a literary-theological text structured with parallelism (spaces, then their filling), functional ontology (light, seasons, food), and ANE cosmology (firmament, waters) to present creation as God’s cosmic temple (Walton, 2009; Wenham, 1987; Beale, 2004). Genesis 1 involves unique miraculous acts (Sailhamer, 1996), beyond the scope of science, which excludes miracles. To claim that God cannot act miraculously is not a scientific conclusion (**philosophical naturalism**), but a philosophical presupposition (Plantinga, 2011). Thus, comparing Genesis to astronomy or geology is a category mistake; its purpose is not to give material sequence but to reveal God’s sovereignty, the world’s sacred order, and humanity’s role within it. **Comparing Genesis 1 to modern science misunderstands the text’s purpose**, much like comparing Psalm 93:1 (“_The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved_”) to modern astronomy. If we understand both the value and the limitations of the scientific method, we can use its insights to help discern the cultural context and literary genre of passages like Joshua 10:12, Psalm 104:5, and Genesis 1–3, and therefore obtain a better grasp of their intention and power. ### Approaches to Relating Genesis 1 to Science Christians have interpreted Genesis 1 along two broad trajectories: Concordist and Non-Concordist. Concordists seek alignment with modern science, proposing models such as the Gap Theory (a ruined primeval creation before Genesis 1:2), Old-Earth Creationism (days as long epochs), Young-Earth Creationism (literal 24-hour days, recent earth, flood geology), and Theistic Evolution (God working through evolutionary processes). Non-Concordists emphasize the text’s literary and theological function rather than scientific harmonization: the Framework View (days as a poetic structure of forming/filling), the ANE Contextual View (cosmic imagery reshaping pagan cosmologies), and the Mythopoetic View (an inspired mythic narrative teaching theological truths). Across these approaches, the unifying concern is how Genesis 1 reveals God’s sovereignty, order, and purpose in creation. Notes about days: Genesis 1 presents creation in six “days” (yom), defined by alternating periods of light and darkness marked by “morning and evening” (Gen 1:5). Linguistically and contextually, the natural sense is ordinary 24-hour days: the Hebrew yom carries no indication of epochal length, and all other time words in the chapter are used in their normal sense (Concordia Theology, 2018). Moses confirms this interpretation in Exodus 20:8–11 and Exodus 31:15–17. Reading the days as ordinary days thus provides the most straightforward and internally consistent interpretation, aligning Genesis 1 with the broader witness of Scripture. ## Common Objections to Genesis 1 1. The earth created before light, the sun, and the stars (Gen 1:1–5, 14–19): Science says the stars existed billions of years before the earth. - I think this is talking about the "*Earth being Formless and void*". The writers of the Bible use commonly understood language for their time and culture, such as Mesopotamia, Egypt and Canaanite (William Brown, Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder, Oxford University Press, 2010) In ancient Near Eastern cosmology, the “cosmic sea” belongs to the pre-creation state. It’s thought of as a neutral, functionless state of non-organization and lifelessness. - This is describing the earth as “*formless and void*.” which is then connected to the “*darkness over the face of the sea*” to represent a neutral, functionless, lifeless state. The biblical authors, like other ANE cultures (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Canaan), used language their audience understood to describe the pre-creation state. In these cosmologies, the “cosmic sea” represents a neutral, functionless, lifeless state. Genesis 1:2 portrays the pre-cosmic condition similarly: the primordial waters exist, but they are unordered and without function—darkness lies over them, and no life or boundaries exist. God’s action begins when He imposes **order, function, and identity** on this chaos, assigning roles to light, sky, land, and seas. - As John Walton explains, ancient cosmologies—including Genesis 1—are not concerned with the material construction of the world but with **organizing and ordering the cosmos as a functional whole**. In ANE thought, something exists when it is separated, named, and given a role. This “function-oriented ontology” contrasts with modern, substance-oriented thinking, which defines existence by physical material. - Moreover, the objection presupposes that Genesis 1–2 is meant as a literal construction timeline apart from the 7 days, when in fact it may serve as an **overview or prologue**, framing what God is about to accomplish and paired with it's counter in Genesis 2:1. 2. Light exists before any light-producing objects (Gen 1:3–5, 14–18): How can there be light without the sun, moon, or stars? And how could there be "*the evening and the morning*" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? - The narrative shows God assigning the role of light first, with the sun, moon, and stars later given to govern that light. This is not incoherent: God can be understood as the initial source of illumination, with the heavenly bodies serving as secondary instruments, much like a fire produces light as a byproduct rather than the essence of light itself. The objection assumes that light must originate from the stars, yet Genesis presents light as a reality independent of those objects, either through God’s own presence or the fundamental properties of creation. 3. Creation is out of order, Plants created before the sun (Gen 1:11–13, 14–18), Birds and whales created before reptiles and insects (Gen 1:20–21, 24–25) - Birds and aquatic life are described as filling the sky and waters, while land animals are later assigned to inhabit the land, with categories that are deliberately broad: anything that swims is a “fish,” anything that flies is a “*bird*,” and land creatures are grouped as either “*beasts*” or “*creeping things*.” - Regarding vegetation, the text presents no difficulty, since plants could easily persist for a single day without sunlight or, alternatively, be sustained by the divine light of Day 1; to object that photosynthesis is impossible while simultaneously accepting creation ***ex nihilo*** is inconsistent. 4. The moon called a “*light*” and called to rule the night (Gen 1:16): the moon does not produce light; it only reflects sunlight. And why, if God made the moon to "*rule the night*", does it spend half of its time moving through the daytime sky? - The Hebrew term for “*light*” (**’ôr**, **אור**) often refers to a **functional source of illumination**, not literal light production. The moon “rules the night” in its appointed role as part of God’s ordering of time and the cosmos, not as a literal generator of light. 5. The stars made “*to give light upon the earth*” (Gen 1:17): Yet only a few thousand stars are visible without a telescope. - We can't divorce this from the rest of the passage. We just read that the Sun and Moon were made to serve as signs, for seasons and timekeeping. Start are also serving this purpose, it's not about being a bright flashlight on the earth at nighttime. Interestingly, in practical contexts like **sailing, stars are used to guide ships** 6. Every plant given for food (Gen 1:29), Every animal given plants for food (Gen 1:30),God saw everything, and it was “very good” (Gen 1:31): Many plants are poisonous, making this command dangerous. All animals are described as herbivores, including predators and parasites and the natural world is full of suffering, predation, and death, which doesn’t seem “*very good*.” - “Very good” describes the functional completeness and suitability of creation for its purposes. The text describes the ideal created order in these passages. It does not necessarily address suffering or death that enters the world later. Christians have a doctrine around that fall of creation and death entering the world. Genesis 1 is the first chapter, it needs to be address in light of the rest of Genesis and the Torah as a whole. - God created light on the first day (Gen 1:3), and He Himself is light (John 8:12)! Same kind of deal in the new earth, we don't need the sun and the moon: Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. > [!question]+ > This is just a sample taken from sites like [Skeptics Annotated Bible](https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html?v=1#1n). Many of these critiques assume ideas that **Christian teaching doesn’t actually promote**. Many objections assume Genesis intends a **modern scientific account** or misread its categories. Many of the supposed contradictions or moral objections arise not from the text itself but from reading it through modern assumptions and applying it outside the context it was intended to convey. For example, SAB says that God made the starts for signs (AKA divination), which is later condemned in the Bible. But even a surface level reading of Genesis 1:14–16 shows that these are **practical roles**: timekeeping, seasons, signs for festivals, not divination. Astrology arises only when humans misuse God’s creation for predicting fate, not as the function God intended. ## My Response I would fall with the Non-Concordists: _If God’s purposes in Genesis 1 did not include teaching scientific facts to the Israelites, then we should not look here for scientific information about the age or development of the world._ Science works by studying **natural events that can be tested and repeated**. Genesis 1, however, describes **supernatural events**, so science cannot prove or disprove it. Many Christians read Genesis 1 as **not meant to teach science**, but to show God’s purpose in creation. Still, we must be careful: if we treat every hard passage as only “figurative” or "metaphorical", ignoring the historical and cultural context in which they were written, we risk denying real events like Jesus’ miracles and resurrection. Yet from start to finish, I think the most faithful reading of Genesis 1 is one that honors its **ANE context** and how it's designed. Genesis 1 is written as a **story told in normal prose**, not poetry or myth (the same genre as 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings). Like the difference between Exodus 14 (story of the Red Sea) and Exodus 15 (the poetic song about it), Genesis 1 uses narrative form to show God’s acts in history. In the ancient world, people cared more about **order, roles, and purpose** than about material parts. You can also compare [Judges 4:12 –22](https://ref.ly/Judg%204.12%E2%80%9322;esv?t=biblia), [Judges 5:2–31](https://ref.ly/Judges%205.2%E2%80%9331;esv?t=biblia) and how Matthew and [Acts 10:37–41](https://ref.ly/Acts%2010.37%E2%80%9341;esv?t=biblia) both describe the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. In each case, the “content” is consistent, but the literary form differ. Unlike the surrounding myths that portray creation as arising from conflict among deities, Genesis presents one sovereign God who speaks the world into ordered existence, declaring it “*good*.” The seven days of creation show God bringing order, and the **seventh day**—when He rests—shows the world as His **temple**, the place where He rules and dwells. The number seven throughout the passage reinforces this connection. Ultimately, Genesis 1 is not in direct agreement or disagreement with modern scientific accounts. Instead, it shows **why the world exists**: because God made it good, ordered, and full of purpose. Attempts to force the text into a modern scientific framework misses its literary artistry and theological depth. John Walton (_The Lost World of Genesis One_, 2009) Wenham, _Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1–15_, 1987 Beale, _The Temple and the Church’s Mission_, 2004 Sailhamer, _Genesis Unbound_, 1996 Plantinga, _Where the Conflict Really Lies_, 2011 [John Walton – BioLogos](https://biologos.org/people/john-walton) ([Dealing with the Genre of Genesis and its Opening Chapters](https://frame-poythress.org/dealing-with-the-genre-of-genesis-and-its-opening-chapters/)