Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One (Paperback)

~ James B. Jordan (Author) "William, a student at Evangelical University, had looked forward all summer to "Introduction to Christiana Literature," a course taught by Professor Edwards..." (more)
Key Phrases: anthropomorphic days, angelic heaven, tohu wabohu, Biblical Horizons, Grand Rapids, Garden of Eden (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Creation in Six Days offers an exegetical, literary, and theological defense of the traditional interpretation of the Genesis account of six-day creation. Jordan's account is primarily designed to answer any approach to the text of Genesis, such as the increasingly popular Framework Hypothesis, that pits the text's literary features against its historical and narrative sense.

Beyond his exegetical critique of several prominent positions, Jordan offers a constructive reading of the early parts of Genesis and also seeks to uncover the assumptions which attract people to the Framework Interpretation and similar views. The explanation, he says, lies in the acceptance of many of the questionable assumptions of modern science on the part of most Christians today, coupled with the pervasiveness of a gnostic or nonhistorical attitude toward the Christian faith.

About the Author

James B. Jordan, TH.M, D.Litt., is author of several books including Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World, Judges: A Practical and Theological Commentary, and Crisis, Opportunity, and the Christian Future. He is Director of Biblical Horizons Ministries in Niceville, Florida.

Product Details

• Paperback: 265 pages
• Publisher: Canon Press (December 6, 1999)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1885767625
• ISBN-13: 978-1885767622
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.6 x 0.7 inches
• Shipping Weight: 14.6 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 2.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (6 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #617,133 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

39 of 45 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Essential book for much-needed reformation of Evangelicalism, January 16, 2003

By	"cdwitmer" (Tachikawa, Tokyo Japan) - See all my reviews

I am now translating this book into Japanese. It is aimed primarily at Evangelicals who affirm biblical inerrancy, yet also feel compelled to try to reconcile the Genesis creation account with the views of modern science. Older, discredited theories of this type -- the "Gap Interpretation" (or "Ruin-Reconstruction Interpretation": there is a gap of indeterminate time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, during which the world of a presumed pre-Adamite race was destroyed and then rebuilt) and the "Day-Age Interpretation" (each "day" is actually a vast amount of time) -- are glossed over; instead Jordan focuses on some of the newer theories now in vogue or coming into vogue among Evangelicals, such as John Sailhamer's "Limited Geography Interpretation," which says that the Genesis creation account actually describes the creation of the land of Canaan, not the whole world. Other Evangelicals interacted with include Bruce K. Waltke, Meredith G., Kline, C. John Collins, Paul H. Seely, Mark Futato, and C. Lee Irons.

As the book's title makes clear, Jordan doesn't think such approaches -- that pit the literary features of Genesis 1 against the plain historical and narrative sense of the text -- are viable. Rather, he thinks the people of God have been correct all along (i.e., for the past 3,000 years) in interpreting Genesis 1 as referring to the creation of the entire universe in six consecutive 24-hour days. He covers all the theories contrary to the traditional reading that are currently popular among Evangelicals and shows how none of them stand up to close scrutiny. He also shows how the presuppositions of unbelieving science make it a weak reed to lean upon, and drives home the point that modern Christians have been too credulous toward, and subtly influenced by, the constructs of unbelieving science, with the result that their worldview is partly orthodox and partly gnostic. ("Gnosticism" meaning a religious perspective that emphasizes Christianity as a religion of ideas rather than as a religion rooted in actual time-based historical events in the physical world.) If the historical factuality of Genesis 1 is suspect, then, ultimately, so is just about everything else that is said to take place in the Bible -- even, for example, the resurrection. Of course, no Bible-believing Christian wants to say *that*, but if the non-historical approach to Genesis 1 is legitimate, then there is no logical barrier to extending that approach to everything else. If all that the Genesis creation account tells us about the first Adam cannot be taken at face value, then what are we to make of statements like 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ("For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.") or Romans 5:12-21 ("Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned . . . where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.")? Here we have core doctrines of the Christian faith that are based squarely on the historic factuality of the origin of mankind exactly as described in the Genesis creation account. Take away the historic factuality and the doctrines no longer have any basis, which is precisely why liberal and secular scholars don't believe in those doctrines. Too many Evangelicals are unwittingly trading away their birthright for a mess of respectability in the eyes of an unbelieving world, respectability which will never be granted in any case. Better that we take an uncompromising "hard line" like J. Gresham Machen, whose integrity in a previous generation won the admiration of an unbeliever like H. L. Mencken (If you haven't read Mencken's obituary of Machen in the January 18, 1937 Baltimore Evening Sun, you owe it to yourself to do a search on "Dr. Fundamentalis" and read it.)

There is happy irony, as Jordan shows, in the fact that the traditional "literal" reading of Genesis 1, which takes the whole account at face value as actual history, is also the approach best equipped to mine the full richness of the abundant symbolism and literary structures of Genesis 1. Yes, it is rife with symbols, and yes, it all actually happened just as it is written. Because God is the One at work, the Bible is fully capable of simultaneously being both symbolic and also historically accurate; there is no contradiction in maintaining both. Any reading that attempts to evade the historic factuality of the six-day creation account ends up obscuring much of the symbolism and literary structure of the text.

I decided to translate this book because gnosticism is a rampant problem in the Japanese churches, just as it is in the English-speaking world, and it is sapping the church of vitality. When something is stuck to one's face, one can be totally unaware of it until it is pointed out. The church is in such a predicament today. Gnostic tendencies unconsciously carried over from the non-Christian society around us are so thoroughly embedded in the fabric of modern Christian culture that we are largely unaware of the problem. If the Japanese translation of this book helps a few pastors and seminary students become more thoroughly biblical in their thinking, it will have been worth it.

Finally, to set the record straight: there is nothing less than respect for all of Jordan's adversaries in this book. Anyone reading pp.118-119 carefully will not conclude that Jordan denies general revelation. Jordan never denies "heavens and earth" refers to the entire physical universe; rather, he denies it is improper to treat "heavens" and "earth" separately. The other complaints against Jordan are spurious; e.g., even if Jordan had been able to locate the obscure medieval rabbis cited by Sailhamer, it wouldn't have significantly altered any of the book's conclusions. Also, argument from authority is a no-no.

34 of 44 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A significant defense in the Reformed tradition, March 12, 2001

By	tim c. "tim c." (St. Louis, MO United States) - See all my reviews

Jordan defends the traditional reading of the creation account with a command of biblical theology rarely encountered. But Jordan does more. He precisely and convincingly identifies exegetical errors in opposing positions. Moreover, he reveals the subtle influences of gnosticism and false assumptions of "science" which are behind modern interpretations. This is an outstanding contribution.--Rev.James Bordwine, Th.D. I highly recommend this book!

3.0 out of 5 stars Non-traditional account, October 28, 2009

By	Mark Schmittle (El Monte, CA.) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

I have read only parts of this book and am not qualified to comment on it as a whole. However, the tite, which I have read, is quite inaccurate and misleading which causes me to doubt the accuracy of the book as a whole.

The "traditional" understanding of the first account of creation in Genesis is not that the universe was created in six twenty-four hour periods. This interpretation only became popular as a result of the Reformation and the tendency to interpret various portions of the Bible outside the context of the Bible as a whole, as well as out of context of the preceding fifteen centuries of Christian commentary. It is also a result of the attacks upon Christian thought by modernist thinkers whose works had the affect of driving Protestant biblical interpretation into ever deeper levels of fundamentalism which were foreign to Christianity prior to the sixteenth century.

From the beginning of Christianity the Church Fathers have assigned numerous meanings to the six periods of creation. A literal understanding of the account was generally not adopted due to many obvious reasons that force individuals such as Prof. Jordan to resort to ridiculously awkward positions. The truly traditional manner of interpreting the first creation account in no way diminishes the power of God for whom time is irrevevent, it being part of creation itself. The first creation account witnesses to the fundamental goodness of creation, its origin in the will of God, and the absolute rule of God's Providence throughout time and space. To reduce this creation account to a scientific or historical document is to miss the fundamental message revealed by God.