Believers in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible have long debated the opening chapters of Genesis. How should we interpret these opening chapters, and how do they reconcile with the findings of modern science? As we approach this controversial subject, we should keep a number of hermeneutical principles in mind.
Principles for interpreting Genesis 1-11
First, Genesis is not MYTHOLOGY. If we deny the historical nature of Genesis 1, we are breaking from the direct teaching of Scripture itself (see “Adam and Eve”). This is why the Chicago Statement of Biblical Hermeneutics (CSBH) states, “We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the book. We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical” (Article XXII).
Second, Genesis is not POETRY. Genesis 1 surely employs repetition throughout the first chapter (“There was evening and there was morning…” “Let there be…” “God said…” “And it was so…”). Even the most strident Young Earth Creationists (YEC) believe that the text of Genesis is stylized and shows marks of literary devices. However, this does not mean that we can consider the entire creation narrative poetry—especially in the sense that it isn’t true or historical. Even if there are poetic devices in Genesis 1, these are being used to convey historical events.
Moreover, the repeated expression toledot (“This is the account…”) is used throughout the book of Genesis to explain all of the events from beginning to end (Gen. 2:4; 5:1; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 36:1). For this reason, it is arbitrary to consider one part of Genesis mythology and another history, when there was no division like this in the original author’s mind.
Third, Genesis is not a SCIENCE TEXTBOOK. The Hebrew vocabulary consisted of only 3,000 words. By contrast, modern English contains roughly one million words. Therefore, as we approach the text of Genesis 1 and 2, we need to keep in mind that we are not reading a modern biology textbook. While modern people would benefit from an account like this, the original audience would be utterly confused. In fact, the creation account would not have been understandable for thousands of years. Therefore, when modern people demand Genesis to read like a science textbook, they are engaging in cultural egocentrism.
Fourth, Genesis needs to be interpreted. While some Christians say, “We should just read Genesis literally,” this isn’t as easy as it sounds. For instance, when we compare Moses’ account in Genesis 1 with Genesis 2, we see stark differences. In Genesis 1, humans are created last, while Genesis 2 appears to place them first. While this can be easily harmonized (c.f. Gen. 2:19), it still demands that we interpret the text. While we should interpret Genesis literally, we shouldn’t interpret it literalistically, because this would quickly lead to contradictions.
Fifth, God’s WORD should not contradict his WORLD. The Bible teaches that we can learn about God through Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17) and Science (Rom. 1:19-20; Ps. 19:1-4). If we find a contradiction between these two subjects, we should consider if we are misinterpreting one or the other. While God’s word and his world were infallibly created, humans are not infallible interpreters. It’s possible that we are misinterpreting God’s revelation in either case. This is why the CSBH states that they “deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture” (Article XXI).
Consider an example. Historically, Christians misinterpreted this passage: “The world is firmly established, it will not be moved” (1 Chron. 16:30). For years, Christians believed that this passage stated that the Earth was at the center of the universe—not moving. When scientists suggested a heliocentric model (i.e. the Earth revolving around the sun), some Christians reacted violently. However, in this case, the problem wasn’t with our interpretation of science; it was our interpretation of scripture. For this reason, as Christians, we should be careful not to misinterpret one or the other.
With these principles in mind, consider some different interpretations of the opening chapters of Genesis.
1. Young-Earth Interpretation
Some Christians believe that God created the universe in six, consecutive and literal 24 hour days. This view is called “Young Earth Creationism” or sometimes “Mature Creation.” Older advocates of this view include Duane Gish, Henry Morris, and Ken Ham. More recent advocates are Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds who represent this view in Three Views on Creation and Evolution (1999). Of course, while YEC is certainly an orthodox view of Genesis 1 and 2, it is by far the least persuasive to us. For a complete assessment and critique of this perspective, see our earlier article, “Young Earth or Ancient Universe?”
2. Day-Age Interpretation
This theory holds that the “days” in Genesis 1 actually refer to long ages of time—perhaps even billions of years. Of course, this perspective has already been espoused above (see “Young Earth or Ancient Universe?”).
3. Gap Theory Interpretation
This is also called “Ruin-Restitution Theory” or the “Recreation View,” which became popular in the 1800’s by Scottish preacher and Theologian Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847). Later, C.I. Scofield popularized this view in his Scofield Reference Bible. More recent proponents of this view are Tom McIver and Arthur Custance (a PhD in anthropology; MA in Middle Eastern languages). The gap theory can be understood as follows:
First, there is an indefinite gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Advocates of this view argue that Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation—perhaps billions of years ago. However, Genesis 1:2 describes that the earth “became formless and void” (see note in the NIV).Thus there is a gap of indefinite time between these two passages (hence the name “gap theory”). Of course, gaps are very common in Scripture (e.g. Zech. 9:9-10; Isa. 9:6; 11:1-5), and perhaps, there is a gap of time here. Tom McIver writes, “The universe—heaven and Earth—was originally (“in the beginning”) created aeons ago; life flourished for millions or billions of years. But this world (perhaps just Earth and not the entire universe) grew to be evil, and God destroyed it in a gigantic cataclysm.”
According to Gap theorists, this destruction must have occurred sometime in the recent past (~8,000 BC). Many gap theorists associate this destruction with the fall of Satan. Since Satan is so central to the story of the Bible, his fall would potentially wreak havoc on the Planet Earth. If this theory is true, then there is no conflict whatsoever between science and scripture, because the two are describing two entirely separate eras in history. Human-like creatures (australopithecines, Homo erectus, etc.?) may have existed before the gap. However, we don’t know about what happened before humans, because it wasn’t told to us.
Second, Genesis 1:2 describes a ruined creation. This passage states, “The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Gen. 1:2). This expression “formless and void” (Hebrew tohu wabōhû) is used to refer to judgment and destruction in the rest of the Bible (Isa. 34:10-11; Jer. 4:23). Thus this might refer to a state of disorder or even judgment before God acted to recreate the Earth.
Additionally, Isaiah writes, “[The Lord] created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, but formed it to be inhabited)” (Isa. 45:18). From this passage, gap theorists note that God did not create the world formless. Thus this could be commentary on the original creation not being formless, but rather had become this way.
Third, gap theorists believe that other passages support their theory. Consider several passages:
(2 Corinthians 4:6) “Light shall shine out of darkness.” Of course, Paul is citing Genesis 1:3. Paul is saying that God is bringing light (i.e. goodness) into our darkened hearts. Gen. 1:3). If Genesis 1:3 is analogous, then Paul would believe that the “darkness” before God’s creation (recreation?) was evil.
(Hebrews 11:3) “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Custance notes that the word “prepared” could be rendered “put in order again” or “restored.” It is used in this way in Matthew 4:21 and Mark 1:19 of repairing fishing nets. Used this way of believers being “perfected” by suffering (1 Pet. 5:10; cf. Gal. 6:1). Thus the author of Hebrews would be saying that God fixed the world from a fallen state in Genesis 1:2.
(2 Peter 3:5-6) “By the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.” When Peter writes, “At that time…” gap theorists argue that the context of this statement is creation—not the Flood. Thus, they argue that this is a reference to the destruction or judgment recorded in Genesis 1:2.
Fourth, the “darkness” of Genesis 1:2 refers to judgment, evil, or disorder. Darkness is understood to be symbolic for judgment (Ex. 10:21), death (Ps. 88:13), oppression (Isa. 9:1), and wickedness (1 Sam. 2:9; Isa. 45:7).
Fifth, gap theory explains the existence of Satan in Genesis 3. While God’s creation is “very good” (Gen. 1:31), every interpreter must agree that some sort of moral Fall occurred before Adam and Eve, because Satan is already fallen at this time. Thus the question isn’t whether a Fall occurred, but rather, when it occurred. Since Scripture places Satan’s Fall in the Garden (Ezek. 28:11ff), this could have occurred long before the first humans were created there.
Critique of the gap theory
First, there is very little scriptural support for this view. Critics of the gap theory argue that we should have more evidence for this view from Scripture, if it was true. However, gap theorists retort that this era of history has nothing to do with us. The Bible explains information to us on a need-to-know basis, and apparently, God didn’t feel it was necessary to disclose this epoch of history.
Second, most of the species created in Genesis 1 and 2 have been around for millions of years. Thus, this appears to conflict with the gap theory, which teaches that these species were created 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Of course, gap theorists retort that God could have repopulated certain species that had been wiped out. In this way, no evidence in the fossil record would demonstrate a contradiction. It is also possible, on this view, that God was merely recreating the Garden after verse 2—not the entire globe. Remember, the Hebrew word eres can be rendered as “dirt, land, or earth.” Thus, under this reading, perhaps the frame of reference is just the Garden.
Third, the rendering of Genesis 1:2 (“And the Earth BECAME formless and void”) is grammatically strained. Henri Blocher writes, “The translation ‘And the earth became’ takes inadmissible liberties with the Hebrew grammar… Only in defiance of philology may the pseudo-translation ‘the earth became’ act as the basis of the theory.” However, we feel that this is overstated by Blocher. Other Hebraists believe that this is a possible (even if it’s an unlikely) rendering of the Hebrew “to be.”
Fourth, we would need to reinterpret God CREATING as actually RECREATING. Henri Blocher writes, “The theory requires that the ‘make’, even in 2:2f. and in Exodus 20:11, be given the meaning ‘remake’. There is no justification for such violence to the language. Hebrew offers the means of expressing the notion of remaking and repairing, but the text does not show the slightest trace of it.” However, again, we feel that Blocher is overstating his case. On the gap theory, God could have made (not remade) flora, fauna, and animal life on the Earth (or just the garden). Moreover, Custance’s appeal to Hebrews 11:3 above would demonstrate a recreation or mending of creation. Moreover, the command to fill the Earth was given to Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:28), but also to Noah (Gen. 9:1). In the second case, at least, the command is clearly refill the Earth after its destruction. Why not in the first case?
While the gap theory often seems strange to interpreters, it’s very difficult to determine what exactly is wrong with it. We have observed that the critics of this view often scoff at this theory because it is strikingly unique, but they have a hard time actually pointing out with is wrong with holding to it. Moreover, if the gap theory is true, it would resolve just about any tension between Genesis and modern science. It should be noted that a theory with the most explanatory power is usually the theory that is correct. For a more robust critique of this view, see Weston W. Fields, Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory of Genesis 1:1, 2 (Winona Lake, IN: Light and Life Press, 1973).
4. Literary Framework Interpretation
This view originated in 1924 from Professor Arie Noordzij of the University of Utrecht. However, it was popularized by more recent scholars like Meredith Kline, Henri Blocher, Bruce Waltke, and Gordon Wenham.
Under this view, the creation account is a historical narrative. However, as a historical narrative, it is framed around a literary framework. Advocates of this perspective believe that the first three days of creation parallel the last three days. Genesis 1:2 tips us off to this framework, when it states, “The earth was formless and void.” Advocates of this view argue that Days 1-3 deal with the “formlessness” of the Earth, while Days 4-6 deal with the “void.” Hebrew scholar Bruce Waltke explains,
The movement and development of each triad reveals a progression within creation. The first triad separates the formless chaos into three static spheres. In the second triad, the spheres that house and shelter life are filled with the moving forms of sun, moon, and living creatures. The inhabitants of the second triad rule over the corresponding spheres: the sun and the moon rule the darkness, while humanity (head over everything) rules the earth.
This perspective could be summarized as follows:
Literary Framework View
Days of Forming
Days of Filling
|Day 1: God distinguishes light from darkness.||
Day 4: God fills this void with the sun, moon, and stars
Day 2: God separates the waters, creating clouds, sea, and sky.
|Day 5: God fills the clouds, sea, and sky with birds and fish.|
|Day 3: God separates the land from the ocean||
Day 6: God fills the land with animals and humans
Gordon Wenham notes that day three and six both have the expression “And God said” twice, showing parallelism. Moreover, he notes that the first verse relates to the last verse of this section too—both mentioning “God,” “create,” and “heavens and earth.”
Advocates of the literary-framework do not believe that the details of the narrative are important. Instead, the purpose is that God is the creator. As Bruce Waltke writes, “The narrator’s concern is not scientific or historical but wishes clearly to establish that it is God who has created all and has dominion over all, including the seas, sun, and moon.” He explains that the purpose of the creation account is so we can imitate the Creator’s work. His purpose is merely to show that “God created the earth and that it is all very orderly.”
Critique of the literary-framework interpretation
First, the literary-framework theory seems more POETIC, than HISTORICAL. Critics of this view argue that this degrades the historicity of Genesis, favoring a more poetic interpretation. However, Genesis is history—not poetry. Theologian Edward Young writes, “Genesis one is written in exalted, semi-poetical language; nevertheless, it is not poetry. For one thing the characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking, and in particular there is an absence of parallelism.” Of course, advocates of the literary-framework view argue that the gospel of Matthew is fully historical, and yet, it does not portray the life of Jesus chronologically—but topically. Strict chronology was not important to ancient authors in the way that it is important to modern people.
Second, the parallels between the days of Genesis are not always true parallels. For instance, the sea creatures of Day 5 do not fill the expanse in the sky from Day 2. Moreover, nothing is created to fill the sea on Day 6, which was created on Day 3. If similarities argue for a topical reading, then dissimilarities would argue for just the opposite.
5. Six-Day Revelatory Interpretation
This view was held by Bernard Ramm and P.J. Wiseman. The most recent advocate is P.J. Wiseman’s son, Donald Wiseman (1991). Donald Wiseman explains this view:
The six days refer to the time taken to reveal to mankind what was prior to his own creation… That God rested (‘ceased’) on the seventh day was not because the creation process was done but for man’s sake and because the process of ‘revelation’ of what God had done was now completed/finished.
In other words, on the first day, God tells Moses, “Moses, I created light… Now go home and think about that…” Then Moses reflects on this, writes it down, and there was morning and evening. The next day, God comes back and tells Moses, “Then I was the one who created the sky and the waters…” Moses reflects on this, evening and morning comes, and God tells him each portion of the creation account. Thus the creation didn’t happen in six days, but God’s telling of the account took a full week to communicate to Moses. Advocates of this view make a number of observations to support this view:
First, ancient Near Eastern creation accounts were often divided into six sections. Wiseman writes, “As was traditional in the earliest ancient Near Eastern accounts of creation the text was originally written in six separate divisions… The matter… could be but a summary of various statements God made verbally as he made his revelation.” For instance, the Enuma Elish also has a “six-fold division of the creation account.”
Second, the use of “in the day” refers to the recounting of the events—not the events themselves. They take Genesis 2:4 (“This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created”) to be a summary of the histories which God divulged in 1:1 through 2:4. Wiseman writes, “‘In the day’ (2:4; 5:1) may indicate the time of the authorship of the account.” He recounts, “Jewish tradition is that the secrets of early creation were shown to Enoch over seven days. He is said to ‘have walked with God’ (Gen. 5:24).”
Critique of the six-day revelatory interpretation
Critics of this view point out that there isn’t anything in the text that would advance this conclusion. In fact, the human author (Moses) isn’t even mentioned at all. If this was intended, then surely the author would have added some commentary like this (i.e. “Then on the second day, God revealed another aspect of creation…”). When Moses received God’s moral instructions on Mount Sinai (Ex. 19-20), he describes the passage of time involved in this revelation. Surely, the author would have mentioned these details, if this was intended. Moreover, Genesis 2:4 doesn’t refer back to 1:1 through 2:3. The Masoretes added a mark (peh) between 2:3 and 2:4 to show that this was a new heading looking forward—not backward. Thus Genesis 2:4 doesn’t support the notion that Genesis 1 should be taken as a description of Moses receiving the revelation.
6. Days of “Divine-Fiat” Interpretation
Alan Hayward is an advocate of this view. Under this view, the six days of creation refer to God’s perspective from heaven—not Earth. Of course, the fulfillment of those instructions took place over unspecified periods of time on Earth, since God’s view of time is different than ours (Ps. 90:4; 2 Pet. 3:8).
Critique of the divine-fiat interpretation
While this view is interesting at first glance, it completely removes the events of Genesis from history. However, Genesis interacts with actual events on Earth—not in heaven. In fact, the heavenly realm isn’t even mentioned in this chapter. By contrast, God is anthropomorphically seen walking through the Garden on Earth (Gen. 3:8). Nothing in the text sets the passage in heaven, but rather, the setting is on Earth.
7. Kingdom-Covenant Interpretation
Advocates of this view argue that the primary purpose of Genesis 1 and 2 is to show God’s relationship to his creation, as the covenant maker. They point out that ancient Suzerainty treaties bear similar marks to Genesis 1. In these treaties (common to the ancient Near East), a Great King (or Suzerain) would make a land treaty with one of his vassals or petty kings. That is, he would give terms for a vassal to rule a small section of his kingdom, but he would make certain terms for this. Similarly, God made a treaty with his “petty kings” to rule creation (Gen. 1:28). Humans, as the divine vassals of the great treaty, are told to have dominion in God’s glorious universe, and this is the purpose of the Genesis account.
Critique of Kingdom-Covenant Interpretation
It isn’t that this view is wrong, so much as it is incomplete. We agree that the language of covenant is present in Genesis 1, but more is being said than just this. For instance, a NT interpreter might see that the purpose of the Passion narratives is the forgiveness of sins, but these are framed in the context of historical events. Similarly, the purpose of Genesis 1 could very well be the covenant between God and humans, but this was framed in the context of history.
8. Functional Interpretation
Advocates of this view argue that God is not so much concerned with the existence of created things, as he is with their function. For instance, Genesis 1:14 states, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years.” In other words, the purpose or function of God’s creation is for a purpose—not an end in itself. Professor John Walton argues that ancient Near Eastern literature focuses on the function of created things, rather than their existence. Therefore, Genesis 1 and 2 describe how the cosmos was created for the purpose of being God’s cosmic temple (Isa. 66:1-2).
According to Walton, the events of Earth history could be completely outside of the scope of Genesis’ history, because it wasn’t referring to creation, but function. He writes, “These creatures could be part of the prefunctional cosmos—part of the long stage of development that I would include in the material phase… The anthropological specimens would not be viewed as humans in the image of God. They would not be assessed morally (any more than an animal would), and they were subject to death as any animal was.” Thus evolutionary theory would be entirely compatible with God’s creative work, and he believes that Genesis “does not offer scientific explanations.” He even holds, “Through the entire Bible, there is not a single sentence in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture. No passage offers a scientific perspective that was not common to the Old World science of antiquity.” He writes, “God… was content for [the Israelites] to retain the ancient cosmic geography… Israelites received no revelation to update or modify their ‘scientific’ understanding of the cosmos.”
Critique of functional interpretation
We do not believe that this view holds much hermeneutical weight. While God’s creation does often have a functional purpose, it is not limited to function. It is absurd to believe that Genesis doesn’t teach the creation of the universe (i.e. ontology). For a complete critique of Walton’s thesis, see Hugh Ross, “Defending Concordism: Response to the Lost World of Genesis One.”
9. Creation of the Garden
The primary advocate of this view is John Sailhamer. Under this view, the creation of the universe refers to Genesis 1:1, but the creation of Garden are described in Genesis 1:2. Of course, since the word “Earth” in Hebrew can also be rendered “land,” advocates of this view argue that Genesis 1 and 2 are primarily describing God’s creation of the Garden of Eden and the surrounding area. God created an oasis for Adam and Eve, and he populated this with animals and plant-life. However, under this view, God is not primarily concerned with all of creation—just the Garden.
Critique of the creation of the garden interpretation
The expression in verse 1 (“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”) is a compound phrase that refers to the entirety of the universe. Waltke writes, “This merism represents the cosmos, meaning the organized universe in which humankind lives. In all its uses in the Old Testament…, this phrase functions as a compound referring to the organized universe.” Of course, Sailhamer would reply that this is just the thesis statement of Genesis, and the rest of the chapter zooms in on the Garden alone. Moreover, it is interesting to note that this view could be compatible with the gap-theory above.
There are many different possible interpretations of Genesis that are all held by believers in the Bible. Since the question of creation is so difficult to discern with any certainty, it is unwise to hold to any one view dogmatically. Instead, we should consider which perspectives are hermeneutically permissible, and make this an intermural Christian discussion. In our own view, we hold to the day-age view six days of the week, the gap theory one day a week, and the literary-framework view for a couple minutes of that one day! Since several of these perspectives are congruent with the doctrine of inerrancy, we feel that we shouldn’t hold too stridently to only one view.
Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998.
Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998.
Rana, Fazale, and Hugh Ross. Who Was Adam?: A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Man. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2005.
Collins, C. John. Science & Faith: Friends or Foes? Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2003.
Collins is professor of OT at Covenant Theological Seminary. He is a graduate of MIT and the University of Liverpool. His book gives an excellent treatment of the issues for a lay person. He gives an excellent defense of Old Earth progressive creation, and he interacts with the subjects of YEC, neo-Darwinism, miracles, and Intelligent Design.
See Dr. William Lane Craig’s study on the different views of Genesis 1 and 2 from his “Defender’s Class.”
 McCabe, Robert V. “A Critique of the Framework Interpretation of Creation Account (Part 1 of 2). Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal. 10 (2005): 51. Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed. 1964.
 Ross, Hugh. The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 1998. 20.
 McIver, Tom. “Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism.” Creation Evolution Journal. Volume 8. Number 3. Fall, 1988. 1-24.
 Custance, Arthur. Without Form and Void. Brockville, Canada: 1970.
 OT scholar (though himself not a gap theorist) agrees that this is a possible grammatical rendering. He writes, “It should be noted in this connection that the verb ‘was’ (hāyeṯâ in Gen. 1:2) may quite possibly be rendered ‘became’ and be thus construed to mean: ‘And the earth became formless and void.’” Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Third Edition. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1998. 198.
 McIver, Tom. “Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism.” Creation Evolution Journal. Volume 8. Number 3. Fall, 1988. 2.
 Custance writes, “I believe it makes excellent sense to assume here that Paul had in mind an interpretation of these first three verses of Genesis 1 which sees the situation as a ruin about to be restored by God’s creative power, commencing with the giving of light where all was formerly darkness.” Custance, Arthur. Without Form and Void. Brockville, Canada: 1970. 16.
 Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984. 43.
 Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984. 43.
 Kline, Meredith. “Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48 (March 1996).
 Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984. See Chapter Two “The Week of Creation.”
 Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001.
 Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.
 Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001. 57.
 Wenham, Gordon. Genesis 1–15, Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. 6.
 Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001. 76.
 Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001. 77.
 Edward J. Young, Studies in Genesis One. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed. 1964. 82-83.
 Moreland writes, “Ancient Near Eastern historical or biographical accounts did not always follow a rigid chronological sequence. Sometimes they diverge and follow a topical order. For example, sometimes Matthew will offer a teaching of Jesus during one of his speeches which is on the same topic but out of order chronologically. This is not an error, for it was the nature of ancient biography to sometimes cover things in a topical way. Matthew does not state things Jesus did not do or say; he just tries, occasionally, to list his views on a given topic together. Chronological order was usually the backbone of a narrative, but topical arrangement could be followed on occasion.” Moreland, James Porter. Scaling the Secular City: a Defense of Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. 218.
 Ramm, Bernard. Christian View of Science and Scripture, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1954 149-156.
 Wiseman, P.J. Clues to Creation in Genesis London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott. 1977.
 Wiseman, Donald, “Creation Time—What does Genesis Say?” Science & Christian Belief, 3, 1991.
 Wiseman, Donald, “Creation Time—What does Genesis Say?” Science & Christian Belief, 3, 1991: 29.
 Wiseman, Donald, “Creation Time—What does Genesis Say?” Science & Christian Belief, 3, 1991: 29.
 Wiseman, Donald, “Creation Time—What does Genesis Say?” Science & Christian Belief, 3, 1991: 32.
 Wiseman, Donald, “Creation Time—What does Genesis Say?” Science & Christian Belief, 3, 1991: 30.
 Wiseman, Donald, “Creation Time—What does Genesis Say?” Science & Christian Belief, 3, 1991: 30.
 Hayward, Alan. Creation and Evolution. Bethany, 1995.
 Gentry, Peter. “Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image.” SBTJ. 12/1. Spring, 2008. 16-42.
 Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. 72, 87-88.
 Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. 169.
 Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. 169. 138.
 Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. 169. 107.
 Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. 169. 19.
 Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. 169. 16, 18.
 Sailhamer, John. Genesis Unbound: A Provocative New Look at the Creation Account. Sisters, Or.: Multnomah, 1996.
 Waltke, Bruce K. Genesis: A Commentary. Zondervan: Grand Rapids, MI, 2001. 59.