What do you think?
Rate this book
In The Beginning... We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in Its Original Context
For years, the evangelical church and its members have debated whether the Bible should be interpreted literally or symbolically in regards to the age of the earth. In their groundbreaking new book, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood, authors Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden say that all these arguments have missed the point. Rather, what Christians really need to know is how to interpret the Bible in its original context. Exposing the fallacies of trying to make the biblical text fit a specific scientific presupposition, Miller and Soden offer a new approach to interpreting Genesis 1 that explores the creation account based on how the original audience would have understood its teaching. First, the authors present a clear explanation of the past and present issues in interpreting the first chapter of the Bible. Second, Miller and Soden break down the creation account according to its historical and cultural context by comparing and distinguishing both the Egyptian and Mesopotamian settings. Finally, they explore common objections to help readers understand the significance that the creation account has for theology today. Christians need not look any further than Genesis 1 to find clues to its meaning. Both irenic and bathed in Scripture, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood will equip every believer to navigate the creation wars, armed with biblically sound explanations.
224 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2012
30 people are currently reading
471 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 31 reviews
February 27, 2013
When it comes to interpreting Genesis 1 within the last few hundred years, much of the debate for Christians has centered on the interpret the days of creation. Are they literal 24 hour periods of time as we experience them now? Are they undefined long periods of time? Or, are they a literary device used to communicate a theological message? Everyone rightly proclaims that context is the key and yet there are varied interpretations based on each person's understanding of what exactly the context is. Herein lies the problem - what is the context of the creation account in Genesis 1? Is it just the exegesis of the Hebrew text or is it to include the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) background as well? How far do we extend the immediate context?
As the debate carries on currently the center of discussion has moved to focus on the ANE cultural background. ANE studies have been on a rise for the last several decades and their findings have caused numerous Christians from the scholar to the layman to question some of the long standing and popular interpretations of Genesis 1. The view that has been questioned the most in light of these ANE findings is the literal 24 hour view which sees the days of creation as 24 hour periods of time as we experience them today. This view is held by those described as Young Earth Creationists (YEC).
One of the most recent books to hit the shelves seeking to question this view is In the Beginning...We Misunderstood: Interpreting genesis 1 in Its Original Context by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Both are graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary and have been or are pastors and teachers.
The Goal of the Book
The title of the book clearly communicates to the reader that the church by in large has misunderstood Genesis 1 and therefore misinterpreted it. After briefly explaining both of their journeys in their understanding of Genesis 1 and creation, Miller and Soden state their purpose in writing the book clearly as their effort to challenge
"The belief that the six days of creation were literal twenty-four-hour days and that believing the Bible requires holding this interpretation. It also includes questioning the assumption that Genesis 1 is primarily about the physical origins of an ancient universe. The assumption that a scientific reading of Genesis 1 is the only way, or even a necessary way, of reading the Bible has to be challenged. And the assumption that the people who read it any other way don't believe the Bible has to be challenged." (p. 31-32)
For Miller and Soden (and no doubt others like them), the problem they have with what they would term a `literalistic' interpretation of Genesis 1 is that it is seen through the eyes of a modern person and not that of the original readers (p. 21 & 37). This is where we begin to discuss the context of Genesis 1. Did the original readers think in terms of material creation like we do today? If not, then how did they think about creation and how does their thinking of creation effect our interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1?
The Exegetical/Hermeneutical Considerations
With context in mind Miller and Soden make the following statements that guide their interpretation:
"To understand it fully, one must read it first in its original language and try to understand it in relation to its original author (Moses), in relation to its original readers (Israel recently released from slavery in Egypt), and in relation to the culture, worldview, and literary genre of the text."
"We believe that understanding Genesis 1 in its original language and setting leads us to conclude that it is a broadly figurative presentation of literal truths; it is highly stylized and highly selective. It does not report history as a journalist might do." (p. 48)
With the aforementioned statements as a foundation, the authors then show from their perspective how the text of Genesis 1 does not exegetically support what the YEC interpretation purports it does (p. 49-57). Amidst a number of exegetical considerations there are two that would garner the most attention. First, the authors point out that while in most English translations of the Hebrew text the word "the" is placed before each day ("on the first day", etc.) this is to add what is not there and take away from the importance of the sixth and seventh days which does have the article "the". Adding it in English distracts the reader from what is happening on the sixth and seventh day (p. 49-50). To Miller and Soden this indicates exegetically that the view is not on a sequence of creation but the object of creation on those given days. Second, while their perspective is not necessarily new, Miller & Soden see the phrase "evening and morning" not as referring to literal days since they appear at day one which is three days before the sun is created (p. 52). Further, the Egyptian texts indicate that they believed a battle occurred between gods for the rising of the sun, and thus, the beginning of a new day. To Miller & Soden this sheds light on the significance of the phrase "evening and morning" as showing a lack of struggle between gods since there is only one God who has all creation under control. They state,
"The transition between days shows no struggle, but instead exhibits a sequential building of order, effortlessly moving from day to day, from one to seven, without any reference to a time lapse." (p. 108)
Another question that provides some hermeneutical guidance is, what is the purpose of Genesis? Why did Moses write it? The authors rightly point out that the literary phrase "the generations of...." provide us with the structure of Genesis through which we are to see its purpose. The eleven toledoths show us that the purpose of Genesis is to provide Israel with their identity as the people of God. This in turn leads them conclude that Genesis
"Was written for the people of God after their exodus from Egypt to (re) acquaint them with the God of their fathers - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and with His calling on their national life, giving them a purpose (to bring blessing to the nations) and a future in a land (the physical platform from which to show the nations the source of blessing; Gen. 12:1-3)." (p. 64)
ANE Background as Context for Genesis 1
The second part of the book deals with the ANE creations accounts as the historical and cultural context of Genesis 1. This is the real meat of the book. The authors cover the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Canaanite creation accounts. The authors walk through each ANE account of creation by both comparing and contrasting them with the Genesis account. They deal with topics such as how they account for the beginning of everything, the initial conditions of creation, the means of creation, the sequence of the events and the purpose of creation.
If these three ANE creations accounts form the background into which Moses wrote Genesis 1 then we see each having a purpose for which it is responded too: (1) Canaan because it was the home of Israel's fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (2) Egypt because it was where Israel had just been freed from and (3) Mesopotamia because it was where Israel was going to. No doubt, God and Moses knew these other creation accounts would have influenced Israel's understanding of God and His creation. Given the three ANE cultural influences upon Israel, the authors rightly contend that the Egyptian cultural context is the one which would have had the most influence on Moses as he wrote Genesis and on Israel as they grappled with their identity as God's people. After all, they had just come out of Egypt.
By comparing and contrasting the three ANE creations with Genesis the authors are trying to help contemporary readers of Genesis appreciate the historical and cultural context of Genesis 1. Thus, they are arguing that a true exegesis of the text will take into account the ANE cultural and historical context in which Genesis 1 was written and to which it was written against. In regards to the parallels between the biblical and ANE accounts the authors are not suggesting that Moses was simply borrowing from them. Rather, he was using similar language, concepts and motifs that the Israelites would have been familiar with and recast the events of creation in order to correct Israel's theology of creation and its God. They are a reference point rather than the foundation.
Since it is the Egyptian context that would be the greatest target for Moses there is naturally the most comparisons and contrasts. It is here that YEC'ers will have to grapple with the most. The authors provide very compelling cases for how Israel would have understood the days, evening and morning and sequence of events in creation. The comparisons and contrasts are both striking and revealing as to how the original audience of Israel would have read Genesis 1. The authors are not trying to argue against God having created all material existence. They heartily agree that He did. Rather, they are trying to properly interpret Genesis 1 in context, allowing it to say what God and Moses intended - no less but also no more.
Conclusion
I have always interpreted Genesis 1 as describing creation in material terms. I am not ignorant of some of the difficulties of this interpretation both exegetically and contextually in regards to the ANE accounts. I am not of the stripe that all of the creation interpretations by Christians are mutually exclusive. There are clear literary patterns in the text and even more clear theological considerations in light of the ANE accounts. They have given me much to think about.
What Miller and Soden have done is give a compelling case for another way of reading the creation account in Genesis 1 that is contextually aware and honest through both exegesis of the Hebrew text and proper consideration of the ANE cultural and historical backgrounds.
I highly recommend In the Beginning....We Misunderstood. It is written at the lay level without sacrificing depth and scholarly analysis of the relevant material. The authors are under no illusion that their book will end the debate but they have certainly given us something to think about. Greg Koukl always says that his goal is not to convert everyone to his position that he meets. Rather, he has a more modest goal of putting a rock in a person's shoe and giving them something to think about as they go their way. That is what Miller and Soden have done. They have given us something compelling to think about.
NOTE: This book was provided for free from Kregel in exchange for an honest review. I was under no obligation to provide a favorable review and the words and thoughts expressed are my own.
As the debate carries on currently the center of discussion has moved to focus on the ANE cultural background. ANE studies have been on a rise for the last several decades and their findings have caused numerous Christians from the scholar to the layman to question some of the long standing and popular interpretations of Genesis 1. The view that has been questioned the most in light of these ANE findings is the literal 24 hour view which sees the days of creation as 24 hour periods of time as we experience them today. This view is held by those described as Young Earth Creationists (YEC).
One of the most recent books to hit the shelves seeking to question this view is In the Beginning...We Misunderstood: Interpreting genesis 1 in Its Original Context by Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden. Both are graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary and have been or are pastors and teachers.
The Goal of the Book
The title of the book clearly communicates to the reader that the church by in large has misunderstood Genesis 1 and therefore misinterpreted it. After briefly explaining both of their journeys in their understanding of Genesis 1 and creation, Miller and Soden state their purpose in writing the book clearly as their effort to challenge
"The belief that the six days of creation were literal twenty-four-hour days and that believing the Bible requires holding this interpretation. It also includes questioning the assumption that Genesis 1 is primarily about the physical origins of an ancient universe. The assumption that a scientific reading of Genesis 1 is the only way, or even a necessary way, of reading the Bible has to be challenged. And the assumption that the people who read it any other way don't believe the Bible has to be challenged." (p. 31-32)
For Miller and Soden (and no doubt others like them), the problem they have with what they would term a `literalistic' interpretation of Genesis 1 is that it is seen through the eyes of a modern person and not that of the original readers (p. 21 & 37). This is where we begin to discuss the context of Genesis 1. Did the original readers think in terms of material creation like we do today? If not, then how did they think about creation and how does their thinking of creation effect our interpretation of the creation account in Genesis 1?
The Exegetical/Hermeneutical Considerations
With context in mind Miller and Soden make the following statements that guide their interpretation:
"To understand it fully, one must read it first in its original language and try to understand it in relation to its original author (Moses), in relation to its original readers (Israel recently released from slavery in Egypt), and in relation to the culture, worldview, and literary genre of the text."
"We believe that understanding Genesis 1 in its original language and setting leads us to conclude that it is a broadly figurative presentation of literal truths; it is highly stylized and highly selective. It does not report history as a journalist might do." (p. 48)
With the aforementioned statements as a foundation, the authors then show from their perspective how the text of Genesis 1 does not exegetically support what the YEC interpretation purports it does (p. 49-57). Amidst a number of exegetical considerations there are two that would garner the most attention. First, the authors point out that while in most English translations of the Hebrew text the word "the" is placed before each day ("on the first day", etc.) this is to add what is not there and take away from the importance of the sixth and seventh days which does have the article "the". Adding it in English distracts the reader from what is happening on the sixth and seventh day (p. 49-50). To Miller and Soden this indicates exegetically that the view is not on a sequence of creation but the object of creation on those given days. Second, while their perspective is not necessarily new, Miller & Soden see the phrase "evening and morning" not as referring to literal days since they appear at day one which is three days before the sun is created (p. 52). Further, the Egyptian texts indicate that they believed a battle occurred between gods for the rising of the sun, and thus, the beginning of a new day. To Miller & Soden this sheds light on the significance of the phrase "evening and morning" as showing a lack of struggle between gods since there is only one God who has all creation under control. They state,
"The transition between days shows no struggle, but instead exhibits a sequential building of order, effortlessly moving from day to day, from one to seven, without any reference to a time lapse." (p. 108)
Another question that provides some hermeneutical guidance is, what is the purpose of Genesis? Why did Moses write it? The authors rightly point out that the literary phrase "the generations of...." provide us with the structure of Genesis through which we are to see its purpose. The eleven toledoths show us that the purpose of Genesis is to provide Israel with their identity as the people of God. This in turn leads them conclude that Genesis
"Was written for the people of God after their exodus from Egypt to (re) acquaint them with the God of their fathers - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob - and with His calling on their national life, giving them a purpose (to bring blessing to the nations) and a future in a land (the physical platform from which to show the nations the source of blessing; Gen. 12:1-3)." (p. 64)
ANE Background as Context for Genesis 1
The second part of the book deals with the ANE creations accounts as the historical and cultural context of Genesis 1. This is the real meat of the book. The authors cover the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Canaanite creation accounts. The authors walk through each ANE account of creation by both comparing and contrasting them with the Genesis account. They deal with topics such as how they account for the beginning of everything, the initial conditions of creation, the means of creation, the sequence of the events and the purpose of creation.
If these three ANE creations accounts form the background into which Moses wrote Genesis 1 then we see each having a purpose for which it is responded too: (1) Canaan because it was the home of Israel's fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (2) Egypt because it was where Israel had just been freed from and (3) Mesopotamia because it was where Israel was going to. No doubt, God and Moses knew these other creation accounts would have influenced Israel's understanding of God and His creation. Given the three ANE cultural influences upon Israel, the authors rightly contend that the Egyptian cultural context is the one which would have had the most influence on Moses as he wrote Genesis and on Israel as they grappled with their identity as God's people. After all, they had just come out of Egypt.
By comparing and contrasting the three ANE creations with Genesis the authors are trying to help contemporary readers of Genesis appreciate the historical and cultural context of Genesis 1. Thus, they are arguing that a true exegesis of the text will take into account the ANE cultural and historical context in which Genesis 1 was written and to which it was written against. In regards to the parallels between the biblical and ANE accounts the authors are not suggesting that Moses was simply borrowing from them. Rather, he was using similar language, concepts and motifs that the Israelites would have been familiar with and recast the events of creation in order to correct Israel's theology of creation and its God. They are a reference point rather than the foundation.
Since it is the Egyptian context that would be the greatest target for Moses there is naturally the most comparisons and contrasts. It is here that YEC'ers will have to grapple with the most. The authors provide very compelling cases for how Israel would have understood the days, evening and morning and sequence of events in creation. The comparisons and contrasts are both striking and revealing as to how the original audience of Israel would have read Genesis 1. The authors are not trying to argue against God having created all material existence. They heartily agree that He did. Rather, they are trying to properly interpret Genesis 1 in context, allowing it to say what God and Moses intended - no less but also no more.
Conclusion
I have always interpreted Genesis 1 as describing creation in material terms. I am not ignorant of some of the difficulties of this interpretation both exegetically and contextually in regards to the ANE accounts. I am not of the stripe that all of the creation interpretations by Christians are mutually exclusive. There are clear literary patterns in the text and even more clear theological considerations in light of the ANE accounts. They have given me much to think about.
What Miller and Soden have done is give a compelling case for another way of reading the creation account in Genesis 1 that is contextually aware and honest through both exegesis of the Hebrew text and proper consideration of the ANE cultural and historical backgrounds.
I highly recommend In the Beginning....We Misunderstood. It is written at the lay level without sacrificing depth and scholarly analysis of the relevant material. The authors are under no illusion that their book will end the debate but they have certainly given us something to think about. Greg Koukl always says that his goal is not to convert everyone to his position that he meets. Rather, he has a more modest goal of putting a rock in a person's shoe and giving them something to think about as they go their way. That is what Miller and Soden have done. They have given us something compelling to think about.
NOTE: This book was provided for free from Kregel in exchange for an honest review. I was under no obligation to provide a favorable review and the words and thoughts expressed are my own.
January 29, 2020
Have you ever sat down to a meal and only when you start eating do you realized how hungry you are? This book was like that.
An excellent read for the spiritual "layman", it dives into the questions of "What did the original author (and Author) mean for the original readers?", specifically in this case, Moses and the Israelites fresh out of Egypt. They also ask the pertinent question, "Can I trust the Bible if it does not mean what I thought it meant from my context when I initially read it, before I understood what it would have meant to the original readers?"
And not least of all it addresses how we can gain and accept new information (both historical and scientific) century after century, and still believe in the ultimate inerrancy of the Bible by coming to a clearer understanding of Who God is and what his intention was/is vis-a-vis the Bible. (Specifically regarding creation in this instance.)
My main critique of the book is the repetitive emphasis of certain points, which for the first half/ three-quarters of the book was fine as it kept key themes in focus, but towards the end it was a little tiresome. The benefit to such repetitiveness would be, I guess, if you were just jumping in at random chapters, or rereading only section of the book at a later date.
An excellent read for the spiritual "layman", it dives into the questions of "What did the original author (and Author) mean for the original readers?", specifically in this case, Moses and the Israelites fresh out of Egypt. They also ask the pertinent question, "Can I trust the Bible if it does not mean what I thought it meant from my context when I initially read it, before I understood what it would have meant to the original readers?"
And not least of all it addresses how we can gain and accept new information (both historical and scientific) century after century, and still believe in the ultimate inerrancy of the Bible by coming to a clearer understanding of Who God is and what his intention was/is vis-a-vis the Bible. (Specifically regarding creation in this instance.)
My main critique of the book is the repetitive emphasis of certain points, which for the first half/ three-quarters of the book was fine as it kept key themes in focus, but towards the end it was a little tiresome. The benefit to such repetitiveness would be, I guess, if you were just jumping in at random chapters, or rereading only section of the book at a later date.
June 6, 2019
The authors compare Genesis creation to ancient Egyptian, Canaanite, and Mesopotamian creation stories. Genesis presents God as transcendent and unique in all creation and as the sole claimant to deity. That's the main difference between Genesis and myths from other ancient cultures. The theology of other societies relied on viewing the gods as equal to various elements of the cosmos. (Rom 1:23-25)
The authors point out that the number seven is unique in Genesis creation and stands for perfection. Indeed, they claim Israel's week is unique in the ancient world. I think they are wrong and miss making a point here. The seven-day week originated in ancient Mesopotamia and became part of the Roman calendar in A.D. 321. The names of the days are based on the seven celestial bodies (the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn), believed at that time to revolve around Earth and influence its events. The names of the days of the week in many languages are derived from the names of the classical planets in Hellenistic astrology, which were in turn named after contemporary deities, a system introduced by the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity. The seven-day week in Genesis shows that God is transcendent over all powers in creation. They note:
"It liberated the concept of time from dependency upon natural phenomena, specifically the waxing and waning of the moon, the rising of the sun, and the harvest season." p.157
They also give this meaningful quote from Galileo.
“We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.” p.33
The authors point out that the number seven is unique in Genesis creation and stands for perfection. Indeed, they claim Israel's week is unique in the ancient world. I think they are wrong and miss making a point here. The seven-day week originated in ancient Mesopotamia and became part of the Roman calendar in A.D. 321. The names of the days are based on the seven celestial bodies (the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn), believed at that time to revolve around Earth and influence its events. The names of the days of the week in many languages are derived from the names of the classical planets in Hellenistic astrology, which were in turn named after contemporary deities, a system introduced by the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity. The seven-day week in Genesis shows that God is transcendent over all powers in creation. They note:
"It liberated the concept of time from dependency upon natural phenomena, specifically the waxing and waning of the moon, the rising of the sun, and the harvest season." p.157
They also give this meaningful quote from Galileo.
“We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by doctrine in His revealed word.” p.33
March 2, 2021
Excellent resource for learning about the polemic view of the creation account! Only reason for 4 stars is I thought the Babylonian and Canaanite polemics could have been more thorough. The Egyptian section was outstanding and made up for it though!
June 9, 2019
Eye opening on the first chapters of Genesis
November 2, 2012
The authors' target audience is students and lay Christians who have an interest in the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:4 and who believe that the Bible trumps science every time. It begins with the personal journeys of the two authors from Young Earth Creationism to a belief that the Bible was never intended to be a literal, chronological description of the creation.
Unlike many previous books on this subject by scientifically-trained authors who deal with the interrelationship of science and the Bible, these authors, both with advanced degrees in theology, deal almost exclusively with the biblical text, rather than with science. They make their case from Scripture, not from science, and the difference shows.
Their main point can be summed up in one of the questions that they ask and answer near the end of the book: "How can I trust the Bible if it does not mean what it says?" which they rephrase as "Can I trust the Bible if it does not mean what I thought it meant from my context when I initially read it, before I understood what it would have meant to the original readers?" They then proceed to help us to understand the original intent and meaning of Genesis 1 by placing us in the position of the original readers as much as possible.
The book centers on very readable accounts of the creation accounts of the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Canaanite, and how they are both similar to and different from the Genesis 1 account (68 out of 177 pages of text), complete with summary tables and some photos. The emphasis is on understanding what Moses' original audience understood about the gods and creation and what God wanted the original audience to understand. The book is similar to John H. Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis 1," but without the functional vs. material creation issue.
The book does not deal directly with the age of the earth or exactly how God created the universe. The authors state that "while we do accept the possibility that the earth is very old (the age of the earth is a legitimate scientific field of study) and that the creation of humanity is relatively recent, we are not advocating any particular scientific conclusion. We believe that God may have intervened often in the history of creation to produce exactly the forms of plant and animal life that he wanted on the earth, leading up to the climax of creation, human beings, and we believe that he specifically intervened in the creation of human beings (Adam and Eve)." Thus the issues of the Big Bang and biological evolution are not addressed in this book.
Their stated goal is to move "the center of the discussion regarding Genesis 1 away from what one believes about science to what the Scriptures say and mean." I believe that they have succeeded admirably in achieving that goal. This is a book you can give to your Young Earth Creationist friends, particularly to young Christians.
The book includes 21 pages of end notes and an 8-page bibliography, but no index.
Unlike many previous books on this subject by scientifically-trained authors who deal with the interrelationship of science and the Bible, these authors, both with advanced degrees in theology, deal almost exclusively with the biblical text, rather than with science. They make their case from Scripture, not from science, and the difference shows.
Their main point can be summed up in one of the questions that they ask and answer near the end of the book: "How can I trust the Bible if it does not mean what it says?" which they rephrase as "Can I trust the Bible if it does not mean what I thought it meant from my context when I initially read it, before I understood what it would have meant to the original readers?" They then proceed to help us to understand the original intent and meaning of Genesis 1 by placing us in the position of the original readers as much as possible.
The book centers on very readable accounts of the creation accounts of the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Canaanite, and how they are both similar to and different from the Genesis 1 account (68 out of 177 pages of text), complete with summary tables and some photos. The emphasis is on understanding what Moses' original audience understood about the gods and creation and what God wanted the original audience to understand. The book is similar to John H. Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis 1," but without the functional vs. material creation issue.
The book does not deal directly with the age of the earth or exactly how God created the universe. The authors state that "while we do accept the possibility that the earth is very old (the age of the earth is a legitimate scientific field of study) and that the creation of humanity is relatively recent, we are not advocating any particular scientific conclusion. We believe that God may have intervened often in the history of creation to produce exactly the forms of plant and animal life that he wanted on the earth, leading up to the climax of creation, human beings, and we believe that he specifically intervened in the creation of human beings (Adam and Eve)." Thus the issues of the Big Bang and biological evolution are not addressed in this book.
Their stated goal is to move "the center of the discussion regarding Genesis 1 away from what one believes about science to what the Scriptures say and mean." I believe that they have succeeded admirably in achieving that goal. This is a book you can give to your Young Earth Creationist friends, particularly to young Christians.
The book includes 21 pages of end notes and an 8-page bibliography, but no index.
February 20, 2013
Game Changer - I have been studying this subject (origins) for a while now. This is the best explanation I have read so far. Christians spend a great deal of time interpreting in context, but this is the first time I have seen it applied to Genesis 1. This helps to clear up most of the controversy.
January 28, 2018
This is for Christians only. If you do not believe Jesus is both God and man and died for the sins of the world, stop reading. If you do believe, this is not a bad read to help explain to you that Genesis is not meant to be science. It was intended to explain how the one true God was different than the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Canaanite gods. Science is never the same one day to the next because science is what humans think right now. It is not the same as truth or God. Science changes day to day. To put it simply, if your five year old asks where babies come from, are you going to explain the genetics of it? No. So if you are trying to explain who the one true God is and how he made the world, are you going to give a scientifically grounded explanation?
This book is scholarly, which makes it a tough read, and it needed heavier editing, as it repeats and repeats and repeats some of the same points unnecessarily. It could have been about 120 pages long rather than 180 pages without this tiresome repetition. It was worth reading, but it is only the beginning of the explanation, as its authors admit.
This book is scholarly, which makes it a tough read, and it needed heavier editing, as it repeats and repeats and repeats some of the same points unnecessarily. It could have been about 120 pages long rather than 180 pages without this tiresome repetition. It was worth reading, but it is only the beginning of the explanation, as its authors admit.
July 3, 2018
Not what I was looking for. I'm on board with the basic idea of the book, that Genesis isn't and never was intended by its authors to be a literal historical or scientific account of the origins of the universe and life on earth. I expected more about the cultural environment of the Jews at the time the book was written, and how it developed as a reaction against the theologies of opposing nations. Instead it compares stories from other tribes and attempts to show why Genesis is somehow more compelling -- which is fine, but not really very informative.
December 7, 2023
This is an interesting read. While utilizing certain aspects of the Ancient Near East creation myths, the thesis is that Genesis shows clear departures from Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Canaanite cosmogonies. There are several interesting points, including the possibility that the six days of creation are not chronological. Also, that the Egyptian repetition of creation with the daily sunrise and sunset is broken through the 6-"day" progressive revelation.
July 5, 2024
I'm not sure why it took me so long to finish this book. It is really quite readable and accessible. Its arguments are carefully and respectfully made, and are vitally important to understand when approaching Genesis as the Word of God. I highly recommend to all Christians--and anyone else who would like a fresh take on the creation story in its ancient context.
May 17, 2017
the first half was really good. The main point of the book was that this view should be allowed.
It never quite explained the full extent of the problems their view creates. I'm only half convinced.
It never quite explained the full extent of the problems their view creates. I'm only half convinced.
Read
February 20, 2020Книгата е добро въведение към темата. Едва ли ще каже нещо ново на тези, които са вече запознати с темата. Въпреки това анализа на диалога между Битие и историите за сътворението на съседните народи е добра. Египетската по-конкретно е много добра.
April 3, 2021
An interesting read.
I enjoyed the book. It is well written and thought provoking. I recommend this book to anyone who os curious about resolving their personal conflict between science and Genesis.
I enjoyed the book. It is well written and thought provoking. I recommend this book to anyone who os curious about resolving their personal conflict between science and Genesis.
September 11, 2018
I wish this book was more scholarly, but it was still quite good. I found chapter 13 problematic. But overall, this book was refreshing. I appreciated its emphasis on Egypt theology and cosmogony.
July 20, 2023
Thought provoking
January 6, 2025
Great book. The right amount of detail/didn't throw too much at you at once. Restated overarching themes a lot which was a bit repetitive but also helps me remember. Very informative and important information.
November 20, 2023
I thought this was fascinating. The comparisons with Egyptian theology were eerily similar to the Genesis creation narrative, and I enjoyed the explanations around it being partially polemic.
However, I think the academic usefulness of this book is heavily limited by the authors' theological biases. e.g. their insistence that Moses was the author of the Torah really limits the theories they can propose. Because I was frustrated with this limitation, they kind of ran with this for much too long of the book. If the book was just the comparison w/ the Egyptian theology as well as the Mesopotamian (and the Q/A wasn't that helpful), I'd have enjoyed its brevity and content much more.
However, I think the academic usefulness of this book is heavily limited by the authors' theological biases. e.g. their insistence that Moses was the author of the Torah really limits the theories they can propose. Because I was frustrated with this limitation, they kind of ran with this for much too long of the book. If the book was just the comparison w/ the Egyptian theology as well as the Mesopotamian (and the Q/A wasn't that helpful), I'd have enjoyed its brevity and content much more.
August 28, 2013
I was interested in reading this on the recommendation of a friend. This book looks at the creation account in Genesis 1 from the standpoint of answering the questions: What was the author's intent when writing this and what was the original audience's understanding?
Can the Bible speak to more than the original author intended? Yes, but it will never speak to something different to what the original author intended. Context is king in this book, and the primary context is the geographical and historical setting. The children of Israel had just spent 400 years in Egypt. They were finally free, and Moses was writing down the story of creation for the Israelites. Given the background that everyone had in Egyptian theology, Moses intended to correct their understanding, so he borrowed from their Egyptian understanding. Not to say that Moses copied stories or beliefs from the Egyptians, but that part of the intention of the writing was to contrast God's act of creation from the common Egyptian beliefs about creation.
In other words, Moses' intention in Genesis 1 was not to give a chronological account of creation, but to show how the role of the one true God in creation in contrast to the Egyptian belief that the Israelites carried out of Egypt with them.
I'm convinced that the Bible must be read in context to be fully understood, so I'm already on board with that general concept. However, I have to go back and read Genesis 1 again and think about it more before making a decision about how to take the thesis of this book.
Can the Bible speak to more than the original author intended? Yes, but it will never speak to something different to what the original author intended. Context is king in this book, and the primary context is the geographical and historical setting. The children of Israel had just spent 400 years in Egypt. They were finally free, and Moses was writing down the story of creation for the Israelites. Given the background that everyone had in Egyptian theology, Moses intended to correct their understanding, so he borrowed from their Egyptian understanding. Not to say that Moses copied stories or beliefs from the Egyptians, but that part of the intention of the writing was to contrast God's act of creation from the common Egyptian beliefs about creation.
In other words, Moses' intention in Genesis 1 was not to give a chronological account of creation, but to show how the role of the one true God in creation in contrast to the Egyptian belief that the Israelites carried out of Egypt with them.
I'm convinced that the Bible must be read in context to be fully understood, so I'm already on board with that general concept. However, I have to go back and read Genesis 1 again and think about it more before making a decision about how to take the thesis of this book.
January 3, 2013
The message of the book was excellent, and is a message that I wholeheartedly agree with. The entire purpose of the book is to investigate the purpose of Genesis 1 as inspired by God, but written by Moses to the Hebrews who recently departed from Egypt. The authors conclude that Genesis 1 was never intended to be a scientific text, and much of the book justifies their assertion. Ultimately, the authors make the case that Genesis 1 is a theological statement (I strongly agree), whose purpose is to state that God created all of those things that at the time of writing were considered gods (i.e. the sun, the moon, the sky, etc.). I share the naïve hope, that the obsession with the hyper literal twenty-first century reading of Genesis 1 would lose its influence in the Christian community. Then the idea of loving God with all of our minds (and therefore using our minds) would no longer be considered incompatible with Christian faith. As a reader who strongly agrees with the message of this book, one might think that I would rate it 5/5, yet I have not. This is because the book is not written well at all; it is really quite dull to read. The book is riddled with excessive repetition and redundancy, so that I will only be recommending it to a very few.
October 10, 2016
Having grown up in Pastor Miller's church and having read his creationist book in junior high, I really wanted to like this book. The book is written to evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of scriptures but have difficulty with young earth creationism. This book provides a reading that allows for both a belief in the Bible and the possibility of an old earth. But I really felt this could have been a "New Yorker article" and not a book. This was a bit too long for me. Maybe because I am not the audience of the book? Still it was a surprise to read. Is the evangelical world going to stop believing in <10,000 year old earth??
Definitely glad to have read it.
I glanced over this review (from a young earth website). I will have to admit that I glazed over about half way through it. I would have followed this closely 30 years ago. But now I am not sure I care that much. Not sure where I fall on the "what is the Bible" spectrum (myth vs inerrant in all things including scientific). But did God tell Moses (if he wrote it) what to write? And should we get bedrock theological truths from the poetry of an murderous Jewish King?
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/...
Definitely glad to have read it.
I glanced over this review (from a young earth website). I will have to admit that I glazed over about half way through it. I would have followed this closely 30 years ago. But now I am not sure I care that much. Not sure where I fall on the "what is the Bible" spectrum (myth vs inerrant in all things including scientific). But did God tell Moses (if he wrote it) what to write? And should we get bedrock theological truths from the poetry of an murderous Jewish King?
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/...
August 9, 2013
The authors shift the focus of the debate about literal interpretation of Genesis 1 from Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationism to one of Ancient Near-Eastern polytheism vs. Israelite monotheism. One of their most challenging points for me is that reading Genesis with either Young Earth or Old Earth Creationism in mind is reading a modern scientific perspective into the text, a perspective which, they argue, was never intended. They spend time pointing out the similarities between especially Ancient Egyptian creation accounts and the Biblical account, also including what little we know about Mesopotamian and Canaanite views of creation.
Ultimately, the point they make is a very simple one that most Christians agree on. Genesis 1 argues that there is only one God, who is sovereign over all creation. Their contribution is to frame that argument in the context with which Israel, recently freed from slavery in Egypt, would have been familiar. Thus, the creation account in Genesis was meant to debunk Egyptian and other ancient Near-Eastern worldviews, not to provide a literal, scientifically accurate portrayal.
Ultimately, the point they make is a very simple one that most Christians agree on. Genesis 1 argues that there is only one God, who is sovereign over all creation. Their contribution is to frame that argument in the context with which Israel, recently freed from slavery in Egypt, would have been familiar. Thus, the creation account in Genesis was meant to debunk Egyptian and other ancient Near-Eastern worldviews, not to provide a literal, scientifically accurate portrayal.
January 22, 2015
I really enjoyed this book. Very thought provoking. I would have given this book 5 stars but I think it gave a poor argument for the text not having chronological order. I hold to the analogous view, which is similar to the framework view, but holds the fact of a created order in Genesis one because science practiced properly shows order in the universe and that is what Genesis shows. The book did a great job in showing that Genesis is not a science book, and that the purpose of Genesis was not to answer modern day scientific questions, but to deal with the people of the ancient near east and what they have experienced, correcting there theology. The authors insisted heavily on understanding context and by doing so we can save ourselves misinterpretations of Genesis and other parts of scripture as well. Highly recommend this book!
April 5, 2013
I thought this would be more interesting: two Dallas-educated evangelicals take on the young earth position. The authors ask the question, "What did Genesis 1 & 2 mean to its initial readers?" (Good question!) A lot of their argument came from Egyptian and Canaanite creation accounts. Their logic is that the early Israelites were influenced heavily by both, and Moses wrote to reinforce good theology, not good science. I found it a bit cumbersome and somewhat hard to follow.
March 5, 2013
A book on Genesis 1. Although it is written by two very intellectual people, this book is a very easy read. Kudos to the authors for being so down to earth and practical. It will give you a fresh new perspective (the correct one, mind you) on the first chapter of Genesis. You will learn a very important principle in bible interpretation: ask the question: to whom was it written to.
June 2, 2013
THey made some pretty goods points. They would be considered progressive creationist. I did find most of the book too repetative. A good point they make is that when is comes down to it, the genesis debate is not about science, it's about theology.
June 8, 2013
Very interesting proposals somewhat similar to John Walton's. Some proposals convincing, some debatable.
Certainly they are correct that Genesis should be read from the perspective of its original readers
rather than only our perspective today.
Certainly they are correct that Genesis should be read from the perspective of its original readers
rather than only our perspective today.
January 8, 2015
Excellent. Sadly, it will not likely be read by those who most need to! The book is a well-founded, measured and careful exposition of Genesis 1 based on historical context. Nice one.
May 4, 2016
A great read to cause one to relook at the creation story.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 31 reviews