Plain Reading of Genesis 1

Copyright 2004, 2005 G.R. Morton. This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.

It is my contention that you anti-evolutionists grossly ignore the grammar of the Bible, treating it like you all treat science. If you agree with it you use it, if you don’t, you ignore it. Consider the grammar and what is actually said in Genesis 1 and I think you will have to agree that the Bible is perfectly consistent with evolution. Let’s start in the middle of Chapter 1.

First, nowhere can you find in Genesis 1 a statement saying, "God brought forth grass and herb yielding seed." I know many will object that God created the grass and herb yielding seed. But look at what it actually says(hopefully in plain language):

And God said, "..."

Oh. God is saying things, he isn't creating things, but anti-evolutionists miss that subtlety. Where is the verb created that applies to God? It isn't there. What is inside the quote?

"Let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed."

Where is God in that phrase? Who or what is bringing forth? A simple grammar teacher would tell you that the earth is the subject of that sentence and is the thing doing the action - which is, bringing forth! God didn't bring forth. The earth did, but, anti-evolutionists never pay attention to that subtlety. Did the earth do it at God's command? Of course, but that doesn't mean God created the grass directly. He used the earth just like he uses us to spread the gospel. Both might be inefficient, but God seems to indicate that He isn't that interested in efficiency as we would judge it.

Now, look at the next verse. Genesis 1:12 It tells us what happened after God's command. What was it? Amazingly, God doesn't appear in this sentence either. Here it is: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself"

The Bible clearly says that the EARTH brought forth grass. It doesn’t say, "God brought forth grass". The Bible is telling us that the earth was an active participant in creating the life forms. Yes, it was at God’s command, but then so are the laws of gravity which govern the motion of the planets.

Genesis 1:20 has a similar structure.

"And God said,"..." God is saying things, not doing them. God delegated to the waters the teeming with life:

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life."

Notice that the word ‘God’ does not appear.  God orders the water to teem with living creatures, but then in the next verse, it does give God the credit for creating the creatures, but then God gets the credit in Genesis 1:11 as well. God still performed the activity through the agency of water. There really isn't an inconsistency between these two verses when viewed from the TE perspective.

Genesis 1:24 Once again, "And God said, "..." Again, God is saying. God is the subject, 'said' is the verb. It doesn't say 'And God created'. It says And God said. Why is it so difficult for anti-evolutionists to see that subtlety? This is why the days of proclamation is the way to go. God is proclaiming things in this chapter. All of the "God made's" or "God called's" are after a proclamation. This is the writer giving credit to God. It is the part of the Days of Proclamation interpretation which makes the most sense. (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/daysofproclamation.htm) When God said, "Let there be light", God didn't say, "Let there be light and it was so". God didn't say the "and it was so". The writer did that to inform his readers in effect "look around -it is so" But YECs and anti-evolutionists miss that subtlety.

NOW, when it comes to mankind, God clearly indicates in his statement that he does that directly.

And God said"..." What did he say? "Let Us make man in our image." That is, God is ordering Himself to make mankind. This is the only place where God actually says He is going to do something directly. Which is why my interpretation holds to the special creation of mankind as I describe elsewhere.

The important point is that all these verses here clearly indicate secondary causation. God was the prime cause, but he used matter to create life, with the exception of mankind. It is what the Bible says. It is the plain reading of scripture. It is the YEC reading which is twisted. They have God creating rather than saying.

The order of events in Genesis 1

The Days of Proclamation view holds that the proclamations were those made by God prior to the creation. Nowhere does it say, "and God said "Let there be light instantaneously". In none of the statements is there an indication that what God said must be fulfilled instantly. Indeed, when God gave the prophecy of the Messiah, it didn't happen instantly either.

Because of this, I believe that Genesis 1 is largely pre-temporal, which aligns well with an ancient Hebrew view of the Torah.

The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher. - Ramban (Nachmanides) Commentary on the Torah, Trans. by Dr. Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1971), p. 8  

Ramban cites Shabbath 88b which is part of the Babylonian Talmud. It says:

R. Joshua b. Levi also said: When Moses ascended on high, the ministering angels spake before the Holy One, blessed be He, 'Sovereign of the Universe! What business has one born of woman amongst us?' 'He has come to receive the Torah,' answered He to them. Said they to Him, 'That secret treasure, which has been hidden by Thee for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the world was created. - Shabbath 88b Babylonian Talmud, http://www.come-and-hear.com/shabba...h_88.html#PARTb

Surely one can't claim that a 5th century text was corrupted by modern science. It is an ancient view and fits quite well with modern science, if interpreted and fit in correctly.

Evolution

Nowhere in the Bible can you find a sentence with the subject 'animal', the object animal and the verb 'brings forth' Find one, I dare you! That means that no where is the statement found "animals bring forth animals after their kind". Nowhere in the Bible can anyone find a statement "animals reproduce animals after their kind". Nowhere can one find in the Bible the statement "Animals reproduce after their kind" Indeed, nowhere can one find the two words "animals reproduce" together in the Bible.

But in spite of this obvious lack of Scriptural support, almost all YECs and anti-evolutionists think, erroneously, that the Bible does contain such a statement. It doesn't. And that means that the Bible does not rule out morphological change in the animals. It doesn't rule out speciation. This entire rejection of evolution is based, in my view, upon a gross misreading of the text. All those phrases, after their kind, means of various kinds, which is entirely different. The earth brought forth animals of various kinds. The earth brought forth grass and herb of various kind. It says nothing about their sexual proclivities.

[Archivist’s note - In KJ English, “after” can mean “according to”. French bibles, for example have “selon leur espèce”, which means “according to their type, sort, or species. - Barry Desborough]

Plain reading is all this is.

When it comes to the flood, when the earliest commentator in Christendom, that of Philo, seems to indicate a local flood, a Mediterranean flood, one doesn't have to believe the YEC version either. They can't claim historical christian precedence.

Chance in the Bible

You mention chance and act as it if is a horrible godless thing. It isn’t. Consider the Urim and Thummim. Most authorities believe it was an object which relied on chance. The ancient Hebrews thought God ruled chance which is why the tribes cast lots for the land. Thus, if the Bible indicates that God controls, chance, the anti-evolutionary argument that chance would leave God out of our universe is also not supported Biblically.

Here is something from an article I was privileged to co-author with Gordon Simons:

[Quote=Glenn R. Morton and Gordon Simons, “Random Worms: Evidence of Random and Nonrandom Processes in the Chromosomal Structure of Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes”, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 55: (2003):3:176 ]

One of the difficulties raised by the rejection of chance in nature lies in the fact that God ordered or allowed the use of such systems at critical places in the biblical history. If God is incompatible with chance in his dealings with this world, it seems odd that He allowed and commanded the use of such systems. The Urim and Thrummim which the priest carried is widely believed to have been a tool for casting lots before the Lord.7 The Hebrews believed what Prov. 16:33 says "The lot is cast into the lap, but every decision is from the Lord." Prov. 18:18 would indicate that the Jews thought God was the true decision maker when chance was involved. That verse says: “Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart.” In 1 Chron. 24:1-5, 1 Chron. 24:31 and 1 Chron 25:8, David cast lots to determine the order of the service for the sanctuary officials. God used the chance lots of the sailors to identify Jonah as the source of their troubles (Jonah 1:7). In Lev. 16:8 God told the Israelites to cast lots for the sacrificial goat. God told Joshua to cast lots in order to identify Achan, the guilty keeper of the Canaanite booty. In Joshua 18:8, we see Joshua casting lots for the assignment of land to the various tribes. In Acts 1:24-26, the disciples used chance, the casting of lots, to determine who should take over the apostolic ministry of Judas. Because of the biblically widespread use of chance to determine God’s will, it is truly amazing that many modern Christians reject chance in biology as being totally incompatible with God’s control.

If God can’t control chance, how can he control the lots above? God predetermined the result yet used a tool of chance. If God can not use chance, then one must logically conclude that God didn’t foreknow how the land would be divided among the tribes, that God didn’t foreknow that Jonah would be picked, that God did not foreknow that Achan was the one who would be chosen or that Matthias would step into the apostolic line. This is a position which basically says that God is not omnipotent or omniscient. If God can use chance in his dealings with Israel and the early church, then why do we say He has no ability to use chance in biology? God can, has and does control the stochastic process even if we don’t understand how it happens.

The rejection of chance is unbiblical, unscriptural and insulting to God.