Research Paper Instructions
Following on your Topic Selection (Module/Week 2) and Annotated Bibliography
(Module/Week 4), you will now write a 1,000- to 1,200-word paper about one of the non-
traditional views of the days of Genesis 1 and compare/contrast it with a traditional 24-hour
day, young-Earth view of Genesis 1. The paper must follow current Turabian format, as this
is the preferred format for the Society of Biblical Literature. The paper will be divided into the
following sections:
A title page. See the example in Turabian format
at https://www.liberty.edu/casas/academic-success-center/wp-
content/uploads/sites/28/2019/04/Author-Date_Style_Sample_Paper.pdf
A 100- to 150-word abstract that summarizes the purpose and findings of your paper.
A 350- to 400-word “Overview of [Non-traditional View]” section that documents the
view’s origin and its specific take on the days of Genesis 1. The goal of this section is
to present the non-traditional view concisely but fairly, without editorial comment or
counterarguments. Describe and discuss this view as if it were being presented by a
well-informed proponent. Topics to address include, but are not limited to:
o Where and when this view entered the theological discussion on origins.
o The specific view of how the Hebrew word “day” is translated or understood
in Genesis 1.
o How Creation Week is treated as a whole (e.g., as a historical sequence,
literary convention, non-historical myth, etc.).
o Does this view make specific claims about the timing of creation in history or
not? For example, does the view require an ancient Earth and universe, or
does it specify if/when the days correspond to Earth history?
A 400- to 450-word “Response to [Non-traditional View]” section that critically
evaluates the nontraditional view from young-Earth creation sources. The goal of this
section is to engage with the non-traditional view, evaluating and responding to its
claims. Topics to address include, but are not limited to:
o How the non-traditional view interprets “day” accurately or inaccurately in
Genesis 1.
o Points of agreement/disagreement with the sequence of creation events in
Genesis 1 as espoused by young-Earth creation.
o Implications for changes to historical Biblical timelines, such as the age of
creation, time of creation of Adam, and/or other events recorded in the early
passages of Genesis (e.g., Noah’s flood).
o Does this view require significant changes to, or rethinking of, important
Christian doctrines?
A 150- to 200-word conclusion summarizing your findings and providing your
perspective of the views presented.
A bibliography of references used (minimum of five references; you may use up to
ten sources for the paper). This bibliography does not need annotations; only the
reference material is required.
1
Genesis 1 and Creationism
Student’s Name
Unit Title
Date
1
Paper Outline:
Introduction
o Abstract
Body
o Contrasting Views of Genesis 1
o Textual Clues as to the Purpose of Genesis 1
o Cultural context and purpose
Conclusion
o Summary of arguments
Genesis 1 and Creationism
Student’s Name
Unit Title
Date
3
In the book of Genesis 1, was the intention of the author to convey across the message
that God created the entire universe in a total of 6 twenty four- hour days, or are the biblical days
meant to understood in another way rather than what we know today? The Bible as a whole is a
source for major debates due to its unclear way of interpretation (Andrews 2019). For this
reason, there has been many studies seeking to interpret the Bible to be understood literally but
all of them have not been successful in achieving this feat. This paper seeks to analyze
perspective of a day as discussed in Genesis 1 and follow its evolution to date.
The question of how to interpret Genesis 1 has been a pain for many scholars for more
than hundred years within the Christian church. The early chapters constituting the book of
Genesis were utilized for their message rather than to fulfill scientific claims which is a practice
that began before the scientific knowledge on the age of universe was discovered (Collins &
Press 2018). The amount of diversity and sophistication surrounding the book of Genesis, serves
as a reminder to all of humanity Christians and scientists alike that the most favorable
interpretation is not six 24-hour days. Regardless of the numerous disagreements surrounding
this topic, the whole of Christianity believes and teaches that only the creation of the world and
every aspect of it are the workings of one God who is also the true God, who upon creating the
world looked at it and saw that it was good.
By taking into account a close analysis of the biblical text of Genesis 1 and the cultural
context within which it was written, in numerous occasions it is favorable to adopt a literary
perspective rather than the modern calendar days or day age type of view (Hemphill 2019). By
doing so, we assume that the seven-day creation plan of the universe thus assumes the role of a
literary device which is mostly utilized for theological purposes which were originally intended
3
by the author of the book instead of fulfilling the role of providing a chronology of natural
history which is a common principle governing many works of science in the modern age. A big
number of Christians have opted for interpreting the book of Genesis in either one of three
possible ways. The first interpret it as per the calendar view. This type or argument is inspired by
the historical straightforward narrative style which is typical for many journalistic pieces.
The book incorporates a repeating formula “there was evening, and there was morning –
the first day,” and so on for six days thus making a reference to the known 24-hour periods. Such
a conclusion coupled with the various summation of years in the genealogies provided in Bible
make it easy for the supporters to view it as a week which was in the durations of about six and
ten thousand years ago (Poythress 2019). The other category is of the people supporting the view
that the days in Genesis are a representation of a given duration of time. The third view is the
literary view which gives a front row seat to the various literary features, cultural contexts, and
theological themes of Genesis 1.
In addition to the Biblical text, the cultural context is beneficial in that it facilitates the
better understanding of the meaning that the author intended. In course of the last century, many
scholars have been able to make tremendous advances towards understanding the ancient near
east culture and proceed to compare the context that Genesis 1 was written. By taking into
account some creation stories in both Egyptian and Babylonian cultures, they point to the fact
that Genesis in its entirety was compiled to counter polytheism (Sheldon 2018). Genesis does
away with the culture whereby celestial bodies were revered by people and instead paints them
in the light that they were made to be of service to humanity. The gap theory type of view for
Genesis 1 seems to reconcile both the Christian and scientific approaches for Genesis 1. The gap
approach first points out the gap that exists in Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. The first details the original
3
creation whilst the latter describes the earth as being both formless and void (Davidson 2016).
For this reason, there exists an infinite time gap between the two verses. In addition to this, the
first world upon creation became evil and God was forced to end it by means of a flood in the
time of Noah.
According to the believers of this theory, Satan was at the center of the destruction of the
world and his fall would have the potential of causing destruction on Earth. If this is the case, it
solves the long standing conflict between science and Christianity on creation since both could
be describing different times. This would also have been supported by the evolution of man thus
giving the sense of different eras i.e. Australopithecus, Home erectus etc. The second bit of
Genesis 1:2 hints to a formless void (Hemphill 2019). This may thus be defended as being the
duration of disorder after which God opted to recreate the world. By taking this view into
context, the aspect of days in Genesis 1 is defined as being an indefinite duration of time. This
theory does not require any type of changes according to Christian doctrines since it does not
conform to the literary form of interpreting the scripture. It attempts to establish a thin line
between Christianity and science by separating the two to cite that they are descriptions of
different eras. By adopting it, there emerges serious changes to the Biblical timelines since the
essence of 150 days that people remained in Noah’s ark are rendered indefinite rather than being
about 5 months in a literary perspective.
In conclusion, it is only natural to ask the question of whether or not the days described in
Genesis 1 ought to be taken as 24-hour days. The most suitable answer to this is yes and no. The
seven-day week which makes up the entire duration of creation is a regular human work week.
However, this does not automatically imply that Genesis 1 is an account of scientific information
concerning the order of natural history. With the various existing references made to ancient
Ov
3
cosmology in Genesis 1, it is evident that God chose not to reveal the modern scientific details to
the Hebrews in the ancient times.
3
References
Andrews, E. D. 2019. THE CREATION DAYS OF GENESIS: Were the Creation Days Literally
24 Hours Long? Christian Publishing House.
Collins, B. C., & Press, B. J. U. 2018. Genesis 1: 26-28: Significance and Challenges.
Davidson, R. M. 2016. The Days of Creation: A History of Christian Interpretation of Genesis 1:
1–2: 3. History of Biblical Interpretation 4.
Hemphill, C. 2019. All in a Week's Work: Using Conceptual Metaphor Theory to Explain
Figurative Meaning in Genesis 1. Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, 71(4).
Poythress, V. S. 2019. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding
Genesis 1-3. Crossway.
Sheldon, R. B. 2018. Science and Exegesis: A Case Study of Genesis. Theology and Science:
From Genesis to Astrobiology, 93.
