An Analysis of the Creation Week
By James D. Seward
(Last updated: 9/21/06)
Copyright © 2004 by James D. Seward

This essay is designed to complement my earlier project, “Is Young-Earth Creationism Christian?” This will approach the creation account in Genesis chapters one and two afresh.

            The creation account in Genesis is unique among other creation accounts. One source says: “The book of Genesis—and thus the Bible itself—opens with an account of creation that is extraordinary for its austerity. Other ancient Near Eastern evocations of God’s (or the gods’) world-ordering activity, including many in the Bible itself (e.g., Ps. 104), provide high drama and graphic description of the events and their protagonists…. Gen. 1:1-2:3, however, is utterly devoid of sensory detail. This eerie abstractness, combined with the highly schematic and formulaic structure of the narrative, conveys a sense of the awe-inspiring majesty and inviolable sovereignty of the God on whom the narrative is unswervingly focused.”^[1] Indeed, it may be said that:

Ø	The “eerie abstractness” is seen in Genesis 1:2: “Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep,” and reflected later in Job 38:9: “When I put the cloud as its [the sea’s] garment and thick gloom as its swaddling band.”
Ø	Genesis 1 is noted for its schematic structure of six creative days and for concluding these with the formula: “And there came to be evening (‘erev) and there came to be morning (boqer), a (x) day (yohm).” This formula means that what God began in the figurative evening of a creative day, became progressively clear, or apparent, after the morning of that “day.”[2] No concluding formula is used for Day 7, as it did not end. The use of ‘erev and boqer to support the idea that yohm is a solar period is problematic, as Moses (the same author of Genesis) himself demonstrated when he penned Psalm 90:6. There, people are likened to grass that blossoms in the boqer and dies in the ‘erev—clearly non-literal and poetic. Note also Isaiah chapter 17, a denunciation against apostate Israel. It speaks of their destruction as being during “that day” (v. 4), and verse 7 notes that some will repent and return to serving their Maker during that yohm. Verse 14 summarizes the results of those who fail to repent as ceasing to exist from ‘erev to boqer. Yet, the Bible at 2 Kings 18:9-10 notes that the actual destruction of the northern tribe of Israel took three years under a siege started by Shalmaneser V. Thus, the use of the ‘erev and boqer formula can be indicative of a length of time exceeding a solar day.
Ø	The device of numbering days here is the same device used in Hosea 6:2, where it is figuratively stated that, “he [God] will make us alive after two days. On the third day (yohm shalishy) he will make us get up, and we shall live before him.” Another figurative numbered day is found in Isaiah 9:14: “And Jehovah will cut off from Israel head and tail, shoot and rush, in one day (yohm echad).” See also Zechariah 14:7-8, where the expression “one day (yohm-echad)” (v. 7) is used to encompass events exceeding one solar day. These are the same words used in Genesis 1:5 and 13 for Days 1 and 3. Thus, numbered days in biblical texts do not necessarily require a solar day.

            Based on the above, it may be understood that Genesis 1 is structured like a song with figurative days and a repetitive concluding formula functioning like a chorus. The comparison with the creation week to the Israelite workweek in Exodus 20:9-11 (the fourth commandment) was meant to dignify the Israelites, and teach them “the ratio of work to rest, of six days to one day, because God in the creation set an example of an analogous periodicity of six and one of his kind of days. Surely the fourth commandment gives no right to say that God’s days always must be understood to be of the same length as man’s days, when we have so much evidence to the contrary.”^[3] “Moreover, the climactic seventh day is a celebration of the goodness of this creation, and becomes a model for human rest and celebration of divine goodness each week.”^[4]
            The Genesis creation account is also noted for its “austere” introduction: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” “Created” in Hebrew, bara, is a verb in the perfect state, showing that the action of creating the heavens and the earth was completed.^[5] It is not a synopsis, but a declaration that the universe and the earth had been created. “It seems that the earth had been established in orbit around the sun and was a [rotating] globe covered with water before the six ‘days,’ or periods, of special creative works began. ‘There was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep.’ (Genesis 1:2) At that early point, something—perhaps a mixture of water vapor, other gases, and volcanic dust—must have prevented sunlight from reaching the surface of the earth. The Bible describes the first creative period this way: ‘God proceeded to say, “Let there be light”; and gradually light came into existence,’ or reached the surface of the earth.—Genesis 1:3, translation by J. W. Watts.”^[6] This caused “a division between the light and the darkness” (Genesis 1:4), due to the rotation of the earth. Thus, at the end of Day 1, diffused light from the sun penetrated to the surface of the earth, made possible by the thinning of obscuring layers that enveloped the earth like ‘swaddling bands.’ (Job 38:9) Illumination at the surface gradually increased with the thinning of the interfering layers of the hypothetical mixture of water vapor, other gases, and volcanic dust.^[7] By Day 4, “more concentrated sunlight reached the surface of the earth. The sources of light—sun and moon and stars—could be seen from the surface of the earth. In the account of [Day 1], the Hebrew word for light is ´ohr, light in a general sense; but on day four, it is ma·´ohr´, meaning the source of the light.”^[8] Thus Day 4 is the completion of what was started on Day 1.
            What likely played a role in clearing up the atmosphere in Day 4 for an earthly observer was the flora of Day 3. As flora absorbed carbon dioxide and released oxygen, this naturally would have contributed to a clearer atmosphere—which aids humanity in the study of astronomy.
            Regarding Moses’ style of writing, Josephus in his Preface to Antiquities of the Jews in 4 §24 states grandiosely and eloquently, “there is nothing therein [Moses’ writings] disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love of mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator [Moses] speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory,^[9] but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly.” While “allegory” is not the best description of the creation week, Genesis 1 condenses in story-like form a complex series of events. It was, however, written ‘wisely yet enigmatically,’ and specific events “plainly and expressly,” whether or not Josephus had the creation week in mind when he penned that.^[10]
            With the above introduction being said, it is now time to view Genesis 1 as a whole. Table 1 below sets forth God’s creative activities during the six creative “days” outlined in Genesis 1.^[11]

Thus ends chapter one. Chapter two continues where it left off, and discusses God’s rest from creation on Day 7. (Ge 2:1-3) Remarkably, the next verse—Genesis 2:4—begins a parallel history that expands insight and fills in details not revealed in the first chapter. This is so specifically with Days 3 and 6, especially so with the latter, as can be seen in Table 2:

Thus, events ascribed to Day 6 in Genesis 2 reveal a special creation made for Adam and for human life. Vegetation, originally associated with Day 3, is made specifically with humans in mind, evidently in Day 6. While Genesis 2:7-8 could indicate that Adam was made before the planting of the garden of Eden, it is more likely that Adam was created after it was fully mature, so he could eat ripe fruit and enjoy the shade from the trees without delay. It must also be noted that chapter two focuses on the garden of Eden, while chapter one does not mention it. According to the conditions described in verses 5-6, there was mist rising from springs, but as of yet no vegetation, no rain, and “no man to cultivate the ground.” This situation changed in verse 7 with Adam’s creation, thus the planting of the garden of Eden is now appropriate to broach.
            In anticipation of a man to cultivate the ground, the garden in Eden is planted and its vegetation is “made to grow out of the ground” (Ge 2:8,9). Then Adam is formed from the elements in the earth, and enters the garden—“there he put the man whom he had formed” (Ge 2:8) and “Jehovah God proceeded to take the man and settle him in the garden of Eden^[12] to cultivate it and to take care of it” (Ge 2:15).^[13] This command to “cultivate it and to take care of it” refers back to the day in Genesis 2:5 when “there was no man to cultivate the ground.” Now there was! (See Appendix C.)
            The planting of this garden in Day 6 began a unique creative project with humankind in mind. Not content with the floral array of Day 3, vegetation with humans in mind was planted in Day 6 in anticipation of Adam. After he was created, more animals—different from the ones created earlier in Day 6—and new flying creatures (outside of their original creation in Day 5) were brought forth.^[14] This complementary creation culminated with the creation of the second human, Adam’s complement, his wife. Adam’s wife was unique in not being made from the ground, but from pre-existing living matter. Additionally: “It is of interest to note that a rib that has been removed will grow again, replacing itself, as long as the periosteum (the membrane of connective tissue that covers the bone) is allowed to remain. Whether Jehovah God followed this procedure or not the record does not state; however, as man’s Creator, God was certainly aware of this unusual quality of the rib bones.”^[15]
            When Adam awoke and beheld her, he exclaimed the “Ishah Declaration” in Genesis 2:23. Elaborating on this is the following: “No doubt knowing by direct revelation from God his Creator and Father how the woman came into existence, Adam was pleased to accept her as his wife, saying: ‘This is at last bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,’ even as was apparent to his very senses. As his complement Adam called his wife ´ish·shah´ (woman, or, literally, female man), [hence, the name “Ishah Declaration”] ‘because from man this one was taken.’ (Ge 2:18-23)”^[16] In the Ishah Declaration, Adam opened with the word pa-ham: “This is at last [pa-ham] bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.” While the Revised Standard Version reads similarly, some translations have “this is now” for pa-ham, like the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible. However, “the English translation ‘this is now’ misses the emphasis which belongs to the word used in the original Hebrew. A better rendering would be ‘now at length’ or ‘now at last,’ as we can see by tracing the use of this word in other portions of the Old Testament.”^[17] Appropriately, the New Living Translation has: “‘At last!’ Adam exclaimed.” This shows that Adam must have spent some time in the garden with no human helper.
            This synthesis of Genesis 1 and 2 works against young-earth creationism (YEC). For, according to it, the garden of Eden’s plants and trees would have to grow to maturity in less than twelve-hours of daylight. The less than twelve-hours of daylight time restriction simply does not leave room for this—as Genesis 2 does not suggest that their growth was greatly accelerated. There was no reason to unnaturally accelerate their growth since God was not trying to prove YEC! (Even if the garden was actually planted sometime in Day 3, the argument would be the same: insufficient time for it to grow to maturity.) He reasonably would allow them to grow at their own pace naturally. That this would be the most natural is best seen in Genesis 1:11-12 for the later part of Day 3, when it was commanded: “‘Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed.’” Thus, “the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed.” That this language means natural growth, plants growing at a natural pace from seeds in the earth, is inescapable. This then sets a reasonable precedent of natural growth for the garden of Eden’s flora. (To play “Devil’s advocate,” it is true that God evidently accelerated the growth of Jonah’s already fast-growing vine in Jonah 4:6, meaning that floral growth may be accelerated unnaturally. But that was specifically done to teach Jonah the lesson recorded in Jonah 4:10-11. God was certainly capable of greatly accelerating the growth of Eden’s garden. But, frankly, Genesis 2 does not imply that this was done—which it would most surely do if God did in fact accelerate the garden’s growth. In fact, it would explicitly state something in Genesis 2:8-9 to the effect of: “Further, Jehovah God planted a garden in Eden, toward the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed, and the man was surrounded by nothing but buried seeds. Thus Jehovah God made to grow out of the ground at a greatly accelerated growth rate all around him to maturity every tree desirable to one’s sight and good for food and also the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and bad.” Seriously, when Adam was placed in the garden, it was already fully mature.) Even the phrase “made to grow out of the ground” need not lend support to accelerated growth, since the same word for “made to grow” (tsamach) is used in Psalm 147:8 and Isaiah 61:11 for natural growth of flora. The only reason why God would want to accelerate the garden’s growth would be to quicken the coming of Adam’s creation. But this is fleshly thinking, since in God’s eyes, having the garden grow naturally to maturity would pose no problem. See: Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 for God’s view of time.
            The twelve-hours of daylight time restriction also does not leave room for the extinction of the dinosaurs and other monstrous reptiles—that would have been deprived of living for an entire solar day.^[18] (Or, as a number of monstrous reptiles were created in Day 5, it would deprive them of living through the completion of two solar days.) And it would certainly be unwise and unloving to limit Adam’s settling in, his exploration of the garden, and his study of the animal kingdom as he creates names for the various kinds of animals (and possibly plants too) to less than twelve-hours of daylight. Finally, Adam’s declaration of “At last!” fully supports the conclusion that he had been living in the garden lacking a human companion for sometime—for an unknown number of years!

            In Table 3b,^[20] the six days are seen in perspective with creation’s crowning culmination, Day 7, which has no counterpart.

During the creation week are seven divine appraisals of “good,” but not on every Day. The second and the seventh are the only ones lacking this: Day 2 due to God calling the expanse “Heaven,” which stands on its own obvious merits and needs no appraisal of “good,” and Day 7 because it has not ended. In additional symmetry, Days 3 and 6 have two divine appraisals of “good”—reconciling with Days 2 and 7 to arrive at the sum of seven.
            Days 3b and 6b are curiously symmetrical with regards to the subject of vegetation. Table 3c focuses on this below:

As can be seen, grass, vegetation, and fruit trees are stated twice for Day 3. Day 6, however, seems to include grass with vegetation for both the human couple and the animals. Fruit trees are listed for the couple, but not for the animals. This does not mean, of course, that animals were prohibited from dining on tree fruit. For them, it must be included with “all green vegetation” like the grass was. Note too, that only the positive provisions or injunctions are promulgated: nothing is stated on what they are prohibited from eating. In the case of the human couple though, it is commanded: “To you let it serve as food.” This same command is not issued for the animals, instead, it is simply stated: “To [the animals] I have given all green vegetation for food.” Thus, the positively stated provision is stated more positively for the human couple. (This command was alluded to after their eviction from the garden, as Genesis 3:18 states: “you must eat the vegetation of the field.”) This command was relaxed only after the Deluge, as stated in Genesis 9:2-3: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you.” The reason why the human couple was not given permission to eat meat at that time is revealed after the Deluge in the new diet description in Genesis 9:2-5. Genesis 9:4 states: “Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” Thus, if they were given explicit permission, the injunction against eating blood would have also been given. With animals though, it is different. They can eat meat and the blood along with it. The mention that “all green vegetation” was given them for food is stated to harmonize with the command to the human couple to eat (only) vegetation, and to be symmetrical with Day 3. It does not explicitly mean, however, that they were prohibited from scavenging or predation. According to Ecclesiastes 3:11, 19-20 and Psalms 49:12, 20, death is natural among them—so deceased animals would need to be scavenged.^[21] And, according to 2 Peter 2:12, predation is natural among animals too. Antediluvian animal predation may even be alluded to in Genesis 4:7: “there is sin crouching at the entrance, and for you is its craving.” Or, as the Contemporary English Version has it: “…and now sin is waiting to attack you like a lion. Sin wants to destroy you, but don’t let it!” Here, sin is likened to the crouching “down of a quadruped,”^[22] and “the language seems to portray the image of a hungry wild beast crouched to pounce on and devour prey.”^[23] Taken at face value, this is an allusion to an antediluvian predator!
            The only other reference to antediluvian animal food is Genesis 6:21, where Noah is instructed to gather “every sort of food that is eaten” (that is, every sort of food that righteous people, not necessarily animals also, eat) for the stay in the ark, and that “it must serve as food for you and for them [his family referred to in verse 18 and the ark-bound animals referred to in the previous verse].”^[24] Likely, Noah stored grains and vegetables for food. In any case, God would doubtlessly make sure there was no malnutrition among the fed animals, since Noah lived up to his end of the bargain by storing food for them. Keeping the animals alive, well fed and healthy was a joint effort between God and man (Noah and his family) during this critical transition. Thus, when it came time for the animals to board the ark, as described in Genesis 7:14-6, any predacious animals must have been satisfied beforehand. Then, when all the animals were assigned to their quarters, the “every sort of food that is eaten” was provided for them. Again, since this was a joint effort between God and man, this “every sort of food” that Noah and his family ate also satisfied the animals.
            It is interesting to compare Genesis 1:29-30 with Psalm 104:14, which states: “He is making green grass sprout for the beasts, And vegetation for the service of mankind, To cause food to go forth from the earth.” Here in postdiluvian times, both man and beast are spoken of as eating vegetation—even though they also both ate meat. This serves to show that giving vegetation for food to the animals may not necessarily mean that they are not eating meat.
            With the schematic symmetry of the creation week detailed above, it may be asked: were the lengths of the Days also symmetrical, being temporally uniform? It may be that since each Day was unique in its purpose, when a Day’s purpose was fulfilled, it was then time to proceed—whether or not a hypothetical predetermined time limit had been reached. Conversely, if more time was desired to fulfill a Day than a hypothetical predetermined time limit allowed for, then by all means, it seems reasonable that more time would be granted. That two or three living creative works bled into Day 6 may harmonize with this answer, in that it demonstrates flexibility (see Table 4). Even the length of Day 7 need not dictate the lengths of the highly unique preceding Days. Thus, the creative week symmetry may not necessarily be used to illustrate creative periods of temporal uniformity. Also, would each Day really need the same amount of time? Supporting this question is the observation that three of them (Days 1, 3, and 5) did not complete what they commenced, and that some appear to be more complex than others (for instance, Day 3 appears to be more complex than Day 1). Rest assured though, even if Days 1-6 were not temporally uniform, the crowning Day 7 could still be of a predetermined time limit since this Day is also unique in its purpose.

The Serpent finds her alone; his subtle approach, first gazing, then speaking, with much flattery extolling Eve above all other Creatures. Eve wondring to hear the Serpent speak, asks how he attain’d to human speech and such understanding not till now; the Serpent answers, that by tasting of a certain Tree in the Garden he attain’d both to Speech and Reason, till then void of both: Eve requires him to bring her to that Tree, and finds it to be the Tree of Knowledge forbidden: The Serpent now grown bolder, with many wiles and arguments induces her at length to eat; she pleas’d with the taste deliberates a while whether to impart thereof to Adam or not, at last brings him of the Fruit, relates what perswaded her to eat thereof: Adam at first amaz’d, but perceiving her lost, resolves through vehemence of love to perish with her; and extenuating the trespass, eats also of the Fruit.^[29]

Given the lack of details in Genesis 3, this exchange between the serpent and the woman is possible. However, it must be noted that Genesis 3:1 prefaces the serpent’s words with: “So it began to say to the woman…” In any event, it is likely that Satan attacked her soon after her creation, since this would be an especially vulnerable time for the couple. She would be somewhat naïve, literally “born yesterday.” Add to this Adam’s condition of finally, “at last,” having a human companion, a wife no less! Satan would also want to strike before she became pregnant, so as to not complicate maters. Thus, while she was alone with Adam apparently unavailable, the spirit resister struck. (Re 12:9)
            Painting the picture precisely is the following: when she was not in the company of her husband, she found herself near the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad. When quizzed by the serpent, she replied correctly, “doubtless having been instructed accordingly by her husbandly head, who was one flesh with her. But when the serpent contradicted God and stated that violating God’s command would result in being like God, knowing good and bad, the woman began to look upon the tree from a different viewpoint.”^[30] God told Adam this regarding the tree: “as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die [or, literally, “dying you (singular for Adam) will die.” Heb., mohth ta·muth´].” (Ge 2:17) The woman quoted God directly or through Adam in reply to Satan: “You [plural] must not eat from it, no, you [plural] must not touch it that you [plural] do not die.” (Ge 3:3) Satan then contradicted God’s originally worded prohibition to Adam in Genesis 2:17: “You [plural] positively will not die [or, literally, “not dying you will die.” Heb., lo´-mohth´ temu·thun´]. (Ge 3:4) After partaking, she rejoined Adam and persuaded him, using her sweet voice (Ge 3:17), to partake as well—which he did.^[31] How did this perfect couple fall apart? Excellently put is the following:

            As for Eve, the person approached first, she certainly had not appreciated her Creator and God, and she had not taken advantage of her opportunity to know him. She listened to the voice of an inferior, ostensibly the serpent, actually the rebellious angel. The Bible does not allude to any surprise on her part at hearing the serpent talk. It does say that the serpent was “the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that Jehovah God had made.” (Ge 3:1) Whether it ate of the forbidden fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and bad” and then appeared to be made wise, able to speak, is not stated. The rebellious angel, using the serpent to speak to her, presented (as she supposed) the opportunity to become independent, “to be like God, knowing good and bad,” and succeeded in convincing her that she would not die.—Ge 2:17; 3:4, 5; 2Co 11:3.
            Adam, who also showed no appreciation and love for his Creator and Provider when faced with rebellion in his household, and who showed no loyalty to stand up for his God when put to the test, succumbed to Eve’s persuasiveness. He evidently lost faith in God and His ability to provide all good things for His loyal servant. (Compare what Jehovah said to David after his sin with Bath-sheba, at 2Sa 12:7-9.) Adam also seemed to be taking offense against Jehovah, as is indicated by his reply when questioned about his wrong act: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree and so I ate.” (Ge 3:12) He did not believe the Serpent’s lie that he would not die, as Eve had, but both Adam and Eve deliberately went in a course of self-determination, rebellion against God.—1Ti 2:14.
            Adam could not say, “I am being tried by God.” Rather, this principle went into operation: “Each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn, sin, when it has been accomplished, brings forth death.” (Jas 1:13-15) Thus, the three rebels—the angel, Eve, and Adam—used the freedom of will with which God had endowed them, to turn from sinlessness to a course of willful sin.^[32]
            Obviously, Adam knew that animals do not speak with human intelligence. He also knew that God had not spoken to him through any animal prior to Eve’s temptation. So who had told his wife to disobey God? Paul says that even though the woman was thoroughly deceived, Adam was not deceived. (Genesis 3:11-13, 17; 1 Timothy 2:14) Perhaps Adam realized that some invisible creature was offering an alternative to obedience to God. Yet, although he himself was not approached by the serpent, he chose to go along with his wife in disobedience.^[33]

            Adam allowed his sense of loyalty to shift from Jehovah to his wife—who had become a false prophetess for the serpent. What Adam should have done was depend on his knowledge he accumulated, and his appreciation and love he cultivated for his Creator and Father. Instead, he allowed his newfound love and appreciation for his wife sway his loyalty: “she gave me fruit from the tree and so I ate.” (Ge 3:12) Through no fault of Jehovah, Adam allowed his long time without a companion to shift his loyalty compass, to have it point to his wife instead of his Heavenly Father. His long stay in the garden without a companion would account for this psychological vulnerability Satan successfully exploited. If this scenario had occurred in the YEC scenario, that is, when Adam had only been alone in the garden for less than twelve-hours of daylight, he would surely be in less of a predicament. His fortitude and loyalty to his Creator would have doubtlessly been stronger due to being fresh, therefore he would have been more able to resist.

as a full-grown, fully mature man, both physically and mentally. He did not have to crawl first to learn to walk, nor babble sounds until able to speak. He was created with these abilities and could communicate with his heavenly Creator and could be set to work to cultivate and care for his garden home. He could comprehend divine instructions and also the prohibition concerning the proscribed tree of the knowledge of good and bad. (Gen. 2:15-17) In those respects, then, he would have been in position to receive a wife at any time. True, and yet Adam was in certain respects like a newborn infant upon being created. Why? Because, fully adult though he was, the day of his being created was still the first day he had lived. Everything he saw—every tree, flower, plant, every stream, lake, river, every creature of all the bird, animal and fish creation—he was seeing for the very first time. This was true of everything he did. When he walked he took his very first step; and so too with the experience of running, climbing, touching, smelling, tasting, eating—all were brand-new experiences for him. What enormous curiosity he must have felt as he examined the fascinating handiwork of Jehovah God and became acquainted with his garden home! How long would he be allowed time to satisfy that curiosity before taking on added responsibility as a family head? That Edenic home does not seem to have been some tiny plot of ground. It contained all the varieties of trees within its boundaries, according to Genesis the second chapter. And there was a “river issuing out of Eden to water the garden,” one large enough to separate and form the headwaters of four major rivers…. (Gen. 2:8-10) It would take time for Adam to go exploring all of this in order to become familiar with the area he was assigned to care for and cultivate.^[40]

Thus, even though created as a physical and mental adult, he was also like a little boy for some time—with evidently much exploration to do and much to learn and experience before becoming a family head. Jesus Christ, however, did appear as an infant—although perfect. “Since the act of serving God willingly is involved, determining exactly where Christ’s cognizance matched Adam’s is not made clear in the scriptures. So how closely the age of Christ coincides with the age of Adam when he sinned as a perfect match is not made clear either, if it even matters at all.”^[41] So regardless of the age of the “last Adam,” it is clear that Adam’s age greatly exceeded some hours before he became a husband, and then a sinner.

The Babylonian creation myth that is claimed by some to be a basis for the Genesis creation account: The god Apsu and the goddess Tiamat [Chaos] made other gods. Later Apsu became distressed with these gods and tried to kill them, but instead he was killed by the god Ea. Tiamat sought revenge and tried to kill Ea, but instead she was killed by Ea’s son Marduk. Marduk split her body in half, and from one half he made the sky and from the other half he made the earth. Then Marduk, with Ea’s aid, made mankind from the blood of another god, Kingu.^[44]

While this does not have any noticeable parallels to the Genesis account, there does appear to be two similarities: (1) Marduk conquering Chaos and splitting it to form the sky and earth. This corresponds roughly to Genesis 1:2-6, where darkness is conquered with the emergence of light, and is replaced with the division of the chaotic waters on earth to the sky. (2) Making mankind with blood may be an echo of Adam’s root-word dam, meaning “red, blood.” From this vantage point, this Babylonian creation myth can hardly be called the original!
            Another summation of it, this time stripped of its polytheistic protagonists, is placed in Table F1:^[45]

In this summation, a number of parallels are seen. Yet, it is still discernable that the Genesis creation account, eventually compiled by Moses, originated first. The polytheistic setting, the omission of flora and fauna, and the “creation” of the heavenly luminaries after the earth, demonstrate that the Enuma Elish represents a garbled tradition possibly originating from the source documents that Moses organized into what we know today as the Genesis creation week.
            Another Mesopotamian myth, from Sumer, has numerous similarities to the Genesis account of Eden, and focuses on the Adam and Eve figures. In it, the goddess Ninhursag created a beautiful garden full of lush vegetation and fruit trees, called Edinu (=Eden), in Dilman, the Sumerian earthly Paradise, a place which the Sumerians believed to exist to the east of their own land, beyond the sea. Ninhursag charged her consort Enki with controlling the wild animals and tending the garden (=Adam naming the animals and tending the garden), but Enki became curious about the garden, and his male assistant, Adapa (=Adam), selected seven plants and offered them to Enki, who ate them (=Adam’s seduction in the garden of Eden and partaking of the forbidden fruit). (In other versions of the story he seduced in turn seven generations of the offspring of his divine marriage with Ninhursag.) This enraged Ninhursag, and she caused Enki to feel pain in his rib, which is double entendre found only in Sumerian, on the word ti which means both “rib” and “life.” This dual meaning was stressed when Ninhursag created a new goddess to cure Enki named Ninti, a name comprised of Nin, “lady,” plus ti, and thus can be translated as both “Lady of Living” and “Lady of the Rib.” Since the story has a clear parallel with: (1) Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib and (2) her designation as “mother of everyone living” in Genesis 3:20, and given that the pun with rib is present only in Sumerian, linguistic criticism places the Sumerian account as the more ancient.^[46] However, it could also be suggested that Moses’ source documents were the original and that the Sumerians doubled the meaning of “rib” with “life” (or vice-versa) as a reference to the historical Eve! This is supported by the wordplay on Adam (meaning “man”) with “ground” found only in Hebrew in Genesis 2:7 (“God proceeded to form the man [adam] out of dust from the ground [adamah]”),^[47] and that only the Hebrew meaning for Eden is sensible. While Edinu is an Akkadian word based on the Sumerian word “eden” meaning ‘plain, steppe,’^[48] in Hebrew Eden means “pleasure”—which is more sensible considering a paradise was planted there, and the other meaning is too generic.
            Given the convoluted nature of the Ninhursag myth compared with the smooth, straight-forward Genesis account, it may again be concluded that this tale represents a garbled tradition related to what is now called Genesis.
            There are other similar mythological accounts dealing with Adam, Eve, fruit, seduction, and serpent motifs, but like the two above cases, these are convoluted in a polytheistic setting with the deities having human characteristics. This suggests they represent garbled traditions related to what is now called Genesis.

The gap theory postulates that an indefinite span of time exists between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. This time span is usually considered to be quite large (millions of years) and is also reputed to encompass the so-called “geologic ages.” Proponents of the gap theory also postulate that a cataclysmic judgment was pronounced upon the earth during this period as the result of the fall of [Satan] and that the ensuing verses of Genesis chapter 1 describe a re-creation or reforming of the earth from a chaotic state and not an initial creative effort on the part of God.^[49]

In support of this remarkable and novel claim, Isaiah 45:18 is cited, where it is declared regarding the earth that Jehovah “did not create it simply for nothing [tohu],” and he “formed it even to be inhabited.” Gap theory connects tohu to Genesis 1:2, where it was used for the first time: “Now the earth proved to be formless [tohu]….” In a novel attempt at resolving a claimed contradiction between these two scriptures, it is claimed that “the ‘tohu’ of Genesis 1:2 precludes the condition of Genesis 1:1 as being contiguous.”^[50] However, this exegesis is unnecessary for this reason: There is no contradiction between Genesis 1:2 and Isaiah 45:18. The word tohu has a range of meanings that are determined by the context. Isaiah 45:18 is not saying that the earth was not created formless, it is saying it was not created for nothing—a notable difference.
            While the Gap claim that there is “an indefinite span of time” between the first two verses in Genesis 1 is acceptable, it is unacceptable that the angel who became Satan rebelled within this timeframe, and that the waters covering the earth were the result of an antediluvian global deluge. What occurred during the creative week occurred for the first time. God did not have to start from scratch after Noah’s deluge, so why would he have to start from scratch after the Gap theory’s antediluvian global deluge? The reason for its antediluvian global deluge, advanced by Christadelphianism, is that the “angels who sinned” per 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 refer to “pre-Adamic inhabitants of the Earth,” since Genesis 1:28 in the King James Version (and the American Standard Version) states that the Adamic couple were to “replenish” (malay) the earth.^[51] But this ignores the meaning of malay as being “fill,” as seen in other translations (like the New World Translation). Further, 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 can be much more easily and appropriately applied to the conditions explicitly stated in Genesis 6:2, as 2 Peter 2:4 and 5 plainly show. Also, if Satan caused a rebellion among these postulated “pre-Adamic inhabitants,” why not warn Adam and Eve of his seditious presence?^[52] The complete absence of this warning exposes the Gap theory as unnecessary, untenable, intellectually unwieldy and without scriptural support.


Unless otherwise indicated, Bible quotations are from the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
(Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984)

Genesis Defended | Is Young-Earth Creationism Christian? | Creation FAQ

10-14-04 | 11-1-04

^[2] Is There A Creator Who Cares About You? Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1998: 94. For other examples of figurative uses of “evening” and “morning,” see: Ps 30:5 (by David, showing these terms were used figuratively in poetry), Ps 49:14, 15 (where the sons of Korah used “morning” figuratively), and Ps 90:6, which is considered above after endnote reference.

^[3] Phillips, Perry G. “IBRI Research Report #40: Are The Days Of Genesis Longer Than 24 Hours? The Bible says, ‘Yes!’” IBRI Research Reports. 1991. Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute. <http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR040/40genday.htm> (12 October 2004).

^[4] The Holy Bible: The Catholic NAB Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990: RG 61

^[5] The Holy Bible: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References, Appendix 3C: “Hebrew Verbs Indicating Continuous or Progressive Action.” Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1984: 1572

^[6] Is There A Creator Who Cares About You? Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1998: 93-4.

^[7] “Did Each Creative Day Always Finish What It Started?” Awake!. 8 June 1991: 12.

^[8] Ibid.

^[9] An allegory is “the representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form; a story, picture, or play employing such representation.” (“Allegory.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. 2003.)

^[10] Admittedly, Josephus was rather confused regarding the creation week. Surprisingly, he thought Adam was created after Day 7 ended (Antiquities of the Jews 1.2 §34), and that the garden of Eden was planted after Adam and Eve, and that they entered it together (1.3 §§37-8).

^[11] “Creation.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed. Table 1 adapted from its “Creative Works” table.

^[12] God settled Adam in the garden. Young’s Literal Translation has it: “causeth him to rest in the garden.” The translation “settle him” is more descriptive than the usual translation of “put him.” Consider also: “Eden’s trees and plants included all those providing scenic beauty as well as those providing food in wide variety. (Ge 2:9, 15) This fact alone would indicate that the garden covered an area of considerable size….[And] in view of man’s nakedness it may be assumed that the climate was very mild and agreeable.—Ge 2:25.” (“Eden.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.) We do not know how long this “settling in” took. He may have had time to fashion tools and construct a shelter for himself during his settling in. Then, as verses 16-7 show, he was warned of the forbidden tree located “in the middle of the garden” (Ge 3:3). It may be that he was warned of the tree only after he had made a limited exploration of the garden, discovering its animal life, great beauty, and: its wide variety of food. If so, it was only after he was familiar with its fruit and beauty that he was told: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.” This places the warning in an even more reasonable light. Plus, it would give him some time to notice any deceased animals (possibly observing how carcasses decomposed and returned to dust), thus grasping the gravity of death—before he was warned of death. Insight on the Scriptures under “Death, Cause of Death in Humans” adds: “death among animals as a natural process was evidently already in effect, since they are passed over completely in the Biblical presentation of the introduction of death into the human family. (Compare 2Pe 2:12.) The gravity of God’s warning about the death penalty for disobedience would therefore be understandable to his human son, Adam.” (emphasis added)

^[13] Regarding Ge 2:15, Insight on the Scriptures under “Eden” states: “While this might appear to indicate that man’s creation took place outside the garden, it may simply refer to God’s ‘taking’ man in the sense of his forming and creating him from the earthly elements, then assigning him to reside initially in the garden in which he came to life.” This is possible too. Having Adam enter the garden though would help him not take it for granted—deepening his appreciation for this loving provision from his Creator.

^[14] Ge 2:19 states in part: “Now Jehovah God was forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.” The footnote in the The Holy Bible: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures—With References for “forming” states: “In point of time it was still the sixth creative day. The verb ‘form’ in the imperfect here denotes continued, progressive action.” Thus, this is not a brief summation of God’s creative works for Days 5-6, but a description of a unique creative event with Adam in mind.

^[15] “Rib.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.

^[16] “Eve.” Ibid.

^[17] Phillips, Perry G. “IBRI Research Report #40: Are The Days Of Genesis Longer Than 24 Hours? The Bible says, ‘Yes!’” IBRI Research Reports. 1991. Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute. <http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR040/40genday.htm> (12 October 2004).

^[18] In all reality, dinosaurs (and other like-reptiles, ie, pterosaurs and plesiosaurs) included such monstrous forms that they were probably best living in and dominating their own environment. According to the fossil record, after their waning and disappearance, a vast array of mammals and birds dominated the earth. This appears to be the time when Adam was created, since this would be a most comfortable environment for him. Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that dinosaurs (and other like-reptiles) predate man.

^[19] Adapted from: The Holy Bible: The Zondervan NASB Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999: note from Ge 1:11 p. 5.

^[20] Adapted from: The Tanakh: The Jewish Study Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004: note from Ge 1:1-2:3 p.12.

^[21] Ec 3:11 teaches that only mankind has “time indefinite” in their heart, meaning that animals were not purposed to live for time indefinite. Ec 3:19-20 and Ps 49:12, 20 teach that sinful mankind is now like the beasts that die. Possibly harmonizing with this teaching is Ge 3:21, where God provided “long garments of skin” for the couple. Since it may seem unfair for God to kill a pair of animals for their skins alone, it seems that he either used the skins of carcasses or created skins in his day of rest (Day 7).

^[22] Clark, Adam. Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible. e-Sword v. 7.5.2. 2005: note from Ge 4:7.

^[23] “Questions From Readers.” The Watchtower. 1 February 1994: 31. This article also states that God’s words directed to Cain in Ge 4:7 may have been recorded by Moses as anachronous, referring to postdiluvian animal predation that Moses’ readers would understand, or may simply have been an allusion to a ravenous hunting beast “even if Cain had never seen such a creature.” This was stated to harmonize with the understanding that animals were non-predacious and vegetarian at that time, to quote: “The Bible does not suggest that any of the animals preyed upon other animals or upon humans. Originally, God specifically assigned vegetation as the diet for both animals and humans. (Genesis 1:29, 30; 7:14-16) That did not change until after the Flood, as Genesis 9:2-5 indicates.” See above for the consideration of Ge 1:29, 30; 9:2-5. Ge 7:14-6 is associated with Ge 6:21, which, see above after endnote reference for a consideration of both. The article is totally correct saying the Bible does not suggest that any of the animals preyed upon humans. That surely would have been prevented! (c.f. Da 6:22) Animals, though, are different.
            Returning to Ge 4:7, God here was trying to reason with the rebellious Cain who was “hot with great anger” (Ge 4:5). As it turned out, he reasoned in vain. It was certainly important then for God to use an illustration that Cain would clearly understand so he could grasp the gravity of the situation. This in itself indicates that the wording of Ge 4:7 was not an anachronism contrived by Moses, or that Cain never saw such a beast before.
            This does not mean though that Moses refrained from inserting or contriving anachronisms in Genesis. To support the ‘anachronism in Ge 4:7 theory,’ the above article listed two other alleged anachronisms by Moses’ hand. The first is the geography of Eden and its four rivers, described in Ge 2:10-14. Here, Moses evidently overlaid his postdiluvian map that he and his readers understood over the antediluvian map of Eden and its rivers, received through oral or written tradition. For instance, the account mentions places like Assyria that existed after the Deluge. So this is a true anachronism, composed of geographic anachronisms.
            The other alleged anachronism listed is in Ge 3:24, of “the flaming blade of a sword that was turning itself continually to guard the way to the tree of life.” However, this need not be an anachronism. Jehovah God is the creator of calamity (Is 45:7), and is recorded by Moses as owning a “glittering sword” or “sword of lightning flashes, a gleaming sword” of righteous justice in De 32:41. The claim that the divine fiery sword in Ge 3:24 is anachronous is apparently based on an appeal to emotion: “Did God invent swords? We need not conclude that our loving Creator was the first one to make what we know as swords.” (underscore added) Well, since Adam no-doubt fashioned tools for construction and for cultivating the ground, it’s likely that Adam invented the sword—a rudimentary cutting tool that falls within the loose definition of “sword.” What Adam and Eve evidently saw was a glowing blade they dare not touch attached to a “hilt” that one of the cherubs held before it started spinning (or, as the article states: “Adam and Eve saw turning in front of the angels something that was blazing.”). Even though this weapon may not have had a name at that time, Moses was right to describe it as a sword—for all intents and purposes, that’s what it was. Since this sword was used to enforce Jehovah’s righteous judicial decision, we can be thankful that our loving Creator was the first one to make swords of justice, and not what we know as swords: the swords of men that have brought carnage. (See: Re 1:16, 2:16, 19:15, 21 for Jesus’ sword of justice.) (It should also be noted that before and after this article, a sword was depicted in illustrations of the couple’s eviction. For example, see: My Book of Bible Stories 1978 and 2004 editions, Story 4; and Learn From the Great Teacher, 2003, page 209. Thus, it may be unlikely that the sword in Ge 3:24 is currently viewed as anachronistic, which would remove one of the two listed supports from the ‘anachronism in Ge 4:7 theory.’)
            I will respectfully close this endnote with this reminder: “Rightly, Jehovah brought evil or calamity upon Adam for his disobedience. Hence, in the Scriptures, Jehovah is referred to as the Creator of evil or calamity. (Is 45:7; compare KJ.)” (“Evil.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.)

^[24] On the other hand, Ge 6:18-21 appears to be arranged in chiastic order that may identify the “them” in verse 21 with Noah’s family in verse 18: (A) “you [Noah] must go into the ark, you and your [family],” (B) “And of every living creature of every sort of flesh, two of each, you will bring into the ark to preserve them alive with you,” (B’) description of “every living creature of every sort of flesh” ending with “two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive,” (A’) foodstuff to enter ark “must serve as food for you and for them [your family(?)].” If so, then the animal inhabitants were cared for completely by God, perhaps by placing them in stasis or suspended animation. Or, perhaps they were fed initially and then fell into the “sleep” for the remainder of their stay, with just a limited number of animals to care for, so Noah’s family is not overworked.

^[25] Possibly four cases if, being consistent with God’s creation for Adam, he created new types of sea creatures for him in Day 6. That Eden had a river large enough to split four ways may support this possibility.

^[26] Isaiah’s Prophecy: Light for all Mankind vol.1. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 2000: 164

^[27] Isaiah’s Prophecy: Light for all Mankind vol.2. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 2001: 338

^[28] “What Happened to the Dinosaurs?” Awake!. 8 February 1990: 11.

^[29] Milton’s Reading Room. <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_9/index.shtml> (21 October 2004). (underscore added)

^[30] “Eve.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.

^[31] If Adam had proved loyal, it is possible that Eve would have seen the literal fulfillment of the divine warning: ‘in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.’ She would have been judged by Adam’s faithfulness and would have expired that literal day, and would have been replaced, perhaps in a less dramatic manner, by a new wife. That God would have to make a new woman in his day of rest is no problem since he has declared at Numbers 11:23 that his hand is not cut short, that he may have made animal skins in Day 7 (Ge 3:21), and that some of his creative works bled over into other Days. It must also be noted that God in effect made a new body for Lazarus, since his dead body was four days in rigor mortis. (Joh 11:17, 39, 41-3) He made a new body in Day 7, like he easily could have done for Adam in making his new wife. Having Eve die that day and replacing her would provide Adam with a wife he could live with forever, whereas living with the sinner Eve would result in the sad situation of being married to someone aging to death while he remains vibrant. It should also be noted that the perfect Adam could have perfect offspring with the imperfect Eve, according to the scriptural indication that perfection cancels imperfection. (See: “Jesus, the ‘Object of Hostility,’ Upholds Jehovah’s Godship.” The Watchtower. 1 September 1966: 533 paragraph 19 and “Jesus Christ, His Birth on Earth.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.)

^[32] “Sovereignty.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed. (italics original)

^[33] “Unmasking the Serpent.” The Watchtower. 1 September 1988: 8.

^[34] “Adam.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.

^[35] “Jesus Christ.”and “Ethanim.” Ibid. At the time of his baptism, he was “about thirty years old.” (Lu 3:21-23) The “Jesus Christ” entry adds: “At the age of 30, the age at which David became king, Jesus would no longer be subject to human parents.—2Sa 5:4, 5; compare Lu 2:51.”

^[36] That is, the same day when Adam died by sinning, not his actual death. “Against Heresies, Book V, chapter XXIII.” Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. 1. p. 551. 2003. Christian Classics Ethereal Library. <http://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xxiv.html> (19 January 2005) (italics added)

^[37] “Abel No. 1.” Insight on the Scriptures. 1988 ed.

^[38] “Keeping a Balanced View of Time.” The Watchtower. 15 July 1976: 436.

^[39] Ibid.: 437.

^[40] Ibid.: 436-7.

^[41] Schaffer, Joseph. “1975 is still a year of significance. Even more significant is the Day of Jehovah.” White Papers. 2001. E-Cepher. <http://www.e-cepher.com/papers/useless/yos_1975_a.html> (11 November 2004)

^[42] The Holy Bible: The Catholic NAB Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990: RG 61

^[43] Ibid.

^[44] Life—How Did it Get Here? Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1985: 35

^[45] Adapted from: The Holy Bible: The Catholic NAB Study Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990: RG 61. Tablet citation from: Bratcher, Dennis. “The Enuma Elish.” History and Culture. 2004. The Voice. <http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html> (10 November 2004).

^[46] “Mythological connections.” Adam and Eve. Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_and_Eve#Mythological_connections> (24 March 2006).

^[47] The only other language where this word-relationship is seen may be Latin, which has humanus, “human” and humus, “soil.” But this is not seen in the Latin Vulgate in Ge 2:7, which has “formavit igitur Dominus Deus hominem de limo terrae.” (italics added)

^[48] “Edinu.” Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edinu> (11 April 2006)

^[49] Sofield, Jack. “The Gap Theory of Genesis Chapter One.” Studies in Genesis. 1975. Bible.org. <http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=36> (19 November 2004).

^[50] Ibid.

^[51] Thomas, J. Elpis Israel, An Exposition of the Kingdom of God. 14th ed. Revised, 1958: 11. Roberts, Robert. Christendom Astray, 1937 ed.: 121-2. Quoted from Byatt, Anthony. Responding to ‘There is no Satan the Devil!’. Malvern: Golden Age Books, 2004: 2.

^[52] For the record, since Christadelphianism denies the clear biblical teaching of Satan’s reality, it would see no problem with the absence of this warning. However, since the Bible does teach that Satan is a person, I suppose it could also be asked, ‘why was the Adamic couple not warned of Satan before he attacked Eve?’ This is not an issue if the angel that became Satan was righteous up to that time. God was not necessarily searching for unrighteousness—he had blessed Day 7, made it sacred, and rested from his works. (Ge 2:3) Thus, he may have been shocked at his attack upon her. (The August 1, 1989 issue of The Watchtower, page 22, adds: “But surprisingly, that na·chash´, that serpent, denied the truthfulness of what God had told Adam in His warning against eating from the forbidden ‘tree of the knowledge of good and bad.’” [underscore added]) But he allowed the attack to proceed uninterrupted to give Eve the opportunity to remain loyal to Adam and her Creator. We can only imagine the reaction of the angelic beings witnessing Satan in his first deceptive act. Some, in righteous indignation and utter horror, may have wanted to “break up the works of the Devil” (1Jo 3:8) at that time, but were restrained from doing so to allow Eve to express her loyalty—and allow Adam to express his. But if Satan had been living before Adam, with Adam being the start of a “replenishing,” it seems only appropriate to inform him of these sobering facts for his own protection and not shelter him from highly relevant information.