What do you think?
Rate this book
Studies in Genesis One
Studies in Genesis One
- GenresTheology
112 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1999
4 people are currently reading
35 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 12, 2025
AN OLD TESTAMENT SCHOLAR’S DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE TEXT, ETC.
Edward J. Young (1907-1968) was Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary for 33 years, until his death. (He was also the father of Davis A. Young, a geologist teaching at Calvin College, who is the author of books such as ‘Creation and the Flood.')
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1964 book, “The following three studies in the first chapter of Genesis are based upon the assumption that this chapter is a revelation from God, and that it tells us about the origin of all things. It is not regarded as the mature reflection of the Israelites, nor as an account devised by the faith and thought of Israel of old… In these three studies I have simply endeavored to take the Bible as it stands, and sought to interpret its first chapter… I am no foe of science, but I believe that the facts of the created universe, when rightly interpreted, will prove to be in harmony with the revelation which God has given us in the first chapter of Genesis… these articles… first appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal…”
He states, “We are told that God ‘created’ man… but we are never told that God created man from the dust of the ground. The word, therefore, has a more restricted usage than does the English word ‘create.’ If in Genesis 1:1 Moses desired to express the thought of absolute creation there was no more suitable word in the Hebrew language at his disposal… The beginning and unique creation---namely, that of heaven and earth---are here joined together. Hence, we may understand the writer as asserting that the heaven and earth had a beginning and that this beginning is to be found in the fact that God created them.” (Pg. 7)
He suggests, “the chapter is not concerned merely with the reformation of already existing material. Its theme is far grander than that… We may… paraphrase, ‘At the time when God said, “Let there be light,” a three-fold condition was in existence, namely, etc.” On this construction we are not told how long this three-fold condition [desolation, waste, darkness] had been in existence, whether for years or merely for moments. Nor is the creation of the three-fold condition explicitly stated. But we are now in a position to understand the relationship of verse one to what follows.” (Pg. 9)
He continues, “the first verse of Genesis, while telling us that the universe as we now know it was created by God, does not at all exclude the thought that the original material from which this present universe was fashioned, was also created by God. That fact is stated in grand summary fashion in verse one. Then follows a detailed account of how God brought the well-ordered universe from the original material into its present form. In this detailed account, however, there is no explicit statement of the creation of the primeval material from which the universe we know was formed. The first act in forming the present universe was God’s speaking… we are not told how long the three-fold condition described in verse two had been in existence before God said, ‘Let there be light.’ … we may not be far wrong if we assume that this three-fold condition had been in existence from the very beginning until God said, ‘Let there be light.’ How long a time that was we of course have no means of knowing. Verse two then states the condition of the earth as it was when created and until God began to form from it the present world.” (Pg. 9-11)
He goes on, “The earth … is described [in verse two] as a desolation and a waste. This does not affirm that it was a jumbled mess… but simply that it was not habitable, not ready for man. The same condition was also present at the close of the first day, except that at that time light had also been brought into existence… There is no reason why God might not have pronounced the condition set forth by the first circumstantial clause of verse two as ‘good.’” (Pg. 13)
He argues, “Karlheinz Rabast… rejects the ‘Restoration Hypothesis’ which would posit a long interval of time between verses one and two, giving as his reason that it is unlikely that the Scripture would pass over such a great catastrophe in silence when it mentions … many comparatively less important matters. According to Rabast, verse two does not describe any original chaotic or raw material of the earth... [It】 presents a background without existence, the indescribable Nothing… there are serious objections to his view, and these must be considered… If it is true, as he asserts, that the Nothing is indescribable and cannot be described in words, then it is passing strange that verse two is thought to be a description of Nothing.” (Pg. 15-17)
He suggests, “The facts of creation… were probably handed down from father to son. And if among the promised line error may soon have been fused with truth through inscripturation, what may we say of the line of Cain? Certainly in this line error would have had free play. Superstition would soon have entered in and obscured the truth. This is the reason why among many peoples we find accounts of creation bearing some relation to what is recorded in Genesis one. Among the various nations and peoples of earth the truth would indeed have been handed down, but it would have been a grossly garbled truth, one encrusted with layers of superstition. Hence, in almost all cosmogonies there are certain elements of truth itself, namely, the formal resemblances which these cosmogonies sustain to the contents of Genesis one.” (Pg. 28)
He states, “the word [‘the earth’] does not have precisely the same connotation which it bore in verse one. In the first verse it … form[ed] a combination which designates the well-ordered world and universe that we now know. In verse two, however, it depicts the earth as being in an unhabitable condition. We might paraphrase the thought, ‘The earth which we now know was at one time in such a condition that men could not live upon it.’” (Pg. 32)
He argues, “If… one rejects the position that Genesis one is a special revelation of God… a number of pertinent questions remain unanswered. For one thing, why cannot God have revealed to man the so-called area of the unknown? Why, in other words, can God not have told man in simple language just what God did in creating the heaven and the earth? What warrant is there for the assumption that the unknown could only be represented through symbolic forms?” (Pg. 49-50)
He explains, “Genesis two may well serve as an example of a passage of Scripture in which chronological considerations are not paramount. This will be apparent if we simply list certain matters mentioned in the chapter: [l] God formed man (verse 7). [2] God planted a garden (verse 8a). [3] God placed the man in the garden (verse 8b). [4] God caused the trees to grow (verse 9a). [5] God placed the man in the garden (verse 15a). It is obvious that a chronological order is not intended here. How many times did God place man in the garden? What did God do with man before he placed him in the garden? How many times did God plant the garden, or did God first plant a garden and then later plant the trees? Clearly enough Moses here has some purpose other than that of chronology in mind.” (Pg. 74)
He asks, “Is Genesis … correct in its teaching that light was created before the sun?... In an area so filled with mystery and about which we know so little, who can dare to assert that Moses is in error in declaring that light was created before the sun? Can one prove that the presence demands a light-bearer? What about the lightning flash? May there not have been rays of original light? We do not know; what can be said with assurance is that at this point Genesis makes no statement that scientists can disprove.” (Pg. 88)
He summarizes, “From the preceding examination of Genesis on there are certain conclusions which may be drawn. 1. The pattern laid down in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is that of six days followed by a seventh. 2. The six days are to be understood in a chronological sense, that is, one day following another in succession. This fact is emphasized in that the days are designated one, two, three, etc. 3. The length of the days is not stated. What is important is that each of the days is a period of time which may legitimately be determined… 4. The first three days were not solar days such as we now have, inasmuch as the sun, moon and stars had not yet been made.
“5. The beginning of the first day is not indicated, although, from Exodus 20:11, we may warrantably assume that it began at the absolute beginning, Genesis 1:1. 6. The Hebrew word [day] is used in two different senses in Genesis 1:5. In the one instance it denotes the light in distinction from the darkness; in the other it includes both evening and morning. In Genesis 2:4b the word is employed in yet another sense, ‘In the day of the LORD God’s making.’ 7. If the word is employed figuratively, i.e., to denote a period longer than twenty-four hours, so also may the terms ‘evening’ and ‘morning,’ inasmuch as they are component elements of the day, be employed figuratively. It goes without saying that an historical narrative may contain figurative elements. Their presence, however, can only be determined by means of exegesis… 9. The purpose of the six days is to show how God, step by step, changed the uninhabitable and unformed earth of verse two into the well ordered world of verse thirty-one… 11. Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history…” (Pg. 103-105)
This book will be of interest to Christians wanting a ‘detailed’ examination of Genesis One.
Edward J. Young (1907-1968) was Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary for 33 years, until his death. (He was also the father of Davis A. Young, a geologist teaching at Calvin College, who is the author of books such as ‘Creation and the Flood.')
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1964 book, “The following three studies in the first chapter of Genesis are based upon the assumption that this chapter is a revelation from God, and that it tells us about the origin of all things. It is not regarded as the mature reflection of the Israelites, nor as an account devised by the faith and thought of Israel of old… In these three studies I have simply endeavored to take the Bible as it stands, and sought to interpret its first chapter… I am no foe of science, but I believe that the facts of the created universe, when rightly interpreted, will prove to be in harmony with the revelation which God has given us in the first chapter of Genesis… these articles… first appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal…”
He states, “We are told that God ‘created’ man… but we are never told that God created man from the dust of the ground. The word, therefore, has a more restricted usage than does the English word ‘create.’ If in Genesis 1:1 Moses desired to express the thought of absolute creation there was no more suitable word in the Hebrew language at his disposal… The beginning and unique creation---namely, that of heaven and earth---are here joined together. Hence, we may understand the writer as asserting that the heaven and earth had a beginning and that this beginning is to be found in the fact that God created them.” (Pg. 7)
He suggests, “the chapter is not concerned merely with the reformation of already existing material. Its theme is far grander than that… We may… paraphrase, ‘At the time when God said, “Let there be light,” a three-fold condition was in existence, namely, etc.” On this construction we are not told how long this three-fold condition [desolation, waste, darkness] had been in existence, whether for years or merely for moments. Nor is the creation of the three-fold condition explicitly stated. But we are now in a position to understand the relationship of verse one to what follows.” (Pg. 9)
He continues, “the first verse of Genesis, while telling us that the universe as we now know it was created by God, does not at all exclude the thought that the original material from which this present universe was fashioned, was also created by God. That fact is stated in grand summary fashion in verse one. Then follows a detailed account of how God brought the well-ordered universe from the original material into its present form. In this detailed account, however, there is no explicit statement of the creation of the primeval material from which the universe we know was formed. The first act in forming the present universe was God’s speaking… we are not told how long the three-fold condition described in verse two had been in existence before God said, ‘Let there be light.’ … we may not be far wrong if we assume that this three-fold condition had been in existence from the very beginning until God said, ‘Let there be light.’ How long a time that was we of course have no means of knowing. Verse two then states the condition of the earth as it was when created and until God began to form from it the present world.” (Pg. 9-11)
He goes on, “The earth … is described [in verse two] as a desolation and a waste. This does not affirm that it was a jumbled mess… but simply that it was not habitable, not ready for man. The same condition was also present at the close of the first day, except that at that time light had also been brought into existence… There is no reason why God might not have pronounced the condition set forth by the first circumstantial clause of verse two as ‘good.’” (Pg. 13)
He argues, “Karlheinz Rabast… rejects the ‘Restoration Hypothesis’ which would posit a long interval of time between verses one and two, giving as his reason that it is unlikely that the Scripture would pass over such a great catastrophe in silence when it mentions … many comparatively less important matters. According to Rabast, verse two does not describe any original chaotic or raw material of the earth... [It】 presents a background without existence, the indescribable Nothing… there are serious objections to his view, and these must be considered… If it is true, as he asserts, that the Nothing is indescribable and cannot be described in words, then it is passing strange that verse two is thought to be a description of Nothing.” (Pg. 15-17)
He suggests, “The facts of creation… were probably handed down from father to son. And if among the promised line error may soon have been fused with truth through inscripturation, what may we say of the line of Cain? Certainly in this line error would have had free play. Superstition would soon have entered in and obscured the truth. This is the reason why among many peoples we find accounts of creation bearing some relation to what is recorded in Genesis one. Among the various nations and peoples of earth the truth would indeed have been handed down, but it would have been a grossly garbled truth, one encrusted with layers of superstition. Hence, in almost all cosmogonies there are certain elements of truth itself, namely, the formal resemblances which these cosmogonies sustain to the contents of Genesis one.” (Pg. 28)
He states, “the word [‘the earth’] does not have precisely the same connotation which it bore in verse one. In the first verse it … form[ed] a combination which designates the well-ordered world and universe that we now know. In verse two, however, it depicts the earth as being in an unhabitable condition. We might paraphrase the thought, ‘The earth which we now know was at one time in such a condition that men could not live upon it.’” (Pg. 32)
He argues, “If… one rejects the position that Genesis one is a special revelation of God… a number of pertinent questions remain unanswered. For one thing, why cannot God have revealed to man the so-called area of the unknown? Why, in other words, can God not have told man in simple language just what God did in creating the heaven and the earth? What warrant is there for the assumption that the unknown could only be represented through symbolic forms?” (Pg. 49-50)
He explains, “Genesis two may well serve as an example of a passage of Scripture in which chronological considerations are not paramount. This will be apparent if we simply list certain matters mentioned in the chapter: [l] God formed man (verse 7). [2] God planted a garden (verse 8a). [3] God placed the man in the garden (verse 8b). [4] God caused the trees to grow (verse 9a). [5] God placed the man in the garden (verse 15a). It is obvious that a chronological order is not intended here. How many times did God place man in the garden? What did God do with man before he placed him in the garden? How many times did God plant the garden, or did God first plant a garden and then later plant the trees? Clearly enough Moses here has some purpose other than that of chronology in mind.” (Pg. 74)
He asks, “Is Genesis … correct in its teaching that light was created before the sun?... In an area so filled with mystery and about which we know so little, who can dare to assert that Moses is in error in declaring that light was created before the sun? Can one prove that the presence demands a light-bearer? What about the lightning flash? May there not have been rays of original light? We do not know; what can be said with assurance is that at this point Genesis makes no statement that scientists can disprove.” (Pg. 88)
He summarizes, “From the preceding examination of Genesis on there are certain conclusions which may be drawn. 1. The pattern laid down in Genesis 1:1-2:3 is that of six days followed by a seventh. 2. The six days are to be understood in a chronological sense, that is, one day following another in succession. This fact is emphasized in that the days are designated one, two, three, etc. 3. The length of the days is not stated. What is important is that each of the days is a period of time which may legitimately be determined… 4. The first three days were not solar days such as we now have, inasmuch as the sun, moon and stars had not yet been made.
“5. The beginning of the first day is not indicated, although, from Exodus 20:11, we may warrantably assume that it began at the absolute beginning, Genesis 1:1. 6. The Hebrew word [day] is used in two different senses in Genesis 1:5. In the one instance it denotes the light in distinction from the darkness; in the other it includes both evening and morning. In Genesis 2:4b the word is employed in yet another sense, ‘In the day of the LORD God’s making.’ 7. If the word is employed figuratively, i.e., to denote a period longer than twenty-four hours, so also may the terms ‘evening’ and ‘morning,’ inasmuch as they are component elements of the day, be employed figuratively. It goes without saying that an historical narrative may contain figurative elements. Their presence, however, can only be determined by means of exegesis… 9. The purpose of the six days is to show how God, step by step, changed the uninhabitable and unformed earth of verse two into the well ordered world of verse thirty-one… 11. Genesis one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history…” (Pg. 103-105)
This book will be of interest to Christians wanting a ‘detailed’ examination of Genesis One.
September 9, 2018
This short collection of essays is very pointed and clear in its historical and syntactical analysis of Genesis 1. Young skillfully selects a handful of controversies in the chapter to discuss in depth. Namely, those surrounding the Framework proposal of Kline and Ridderbos. Young is no fan of the Framework interpretation of Genesis 1 and while I tend to agree more with Kline than Young, the latter is clear in his critiques and asks challenging questions that deserve an answer.
October 8, 2018
Solid work on the days of creation. Young makes an odd comment on page 102 that the age of earth is not at the heart of the question, but his own hermeneutics (interpreting Genesis 1 consistently with Genesis 2 & 3) drive an obvious answer to this question.
Read
September 13, 2018Read various parts in relation to Young's response to Meredith Kline's literary framework view of Genesis 1.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews