Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One by James B. Jordan

Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One Reviews

• 
  Peter Bringe

  Wonderful. This book contains a thoughtful and solid critique of non-literal/non-historical interpretations of Genesis 1 and defense of the traditional six 24-hour day creation view. It is also includes an insightful discussion of Gnosticism (i.e. "the tendency to replace the historic facts of Christianity with philosophical ideas…the tendency to de-historicize and de-physicalize the Christian religion," p. 71), as well as an investigation of Genesis 1-2 and a positive statement of its exposition.
  
  While some of Jordan's interpretations will take some time to chew on, he adds much richness to our approach to Genesis that is sometimes lacking in modern creationist literature. Modern creationists are often scientists, not biblical scholars. James Jordan does an excellent job supplying this side of the discussion, both in his critiques of the Framework Interpretation in its various forms and in his positive exposition of Genesis. And his chapter on Gnosticism points to the larger issues at stake and reminds us why this is an important issue.
  
  
• 
  John

  I have appreciated James Jordan's body of work and read this more out of an interest in his work than an interest in entering into the creation/evolution/old-earth/young-earth debate. These things come up, unavoidably, but the book is not interested in those debates in the way most readers might expect.
  
  Jordan is primarily interested in what the Bible has to say, and he'll go wherever he believes it is leading us. He begins the book by showing his commitments. He shows his commitment to the six 24 hour day creation and the consequent young-earth interpretation of Genesis right away. He is unswayed by the sophisticated arguments that attempt to solve what many scholars believe are apparent contradictions in the creation account.
  
  Jordan argues that prior to the nineteenth century, the Church did not discuss apparent contradictions in the creation account, not seeing them because there are none. Unbiblical presuppositions have crept into the church undermining the traditional understanding of the creation account, that has led many scholars within evangelicalism to create various interpretations that accommodate the unbiblical assumptions brought to bear upon the text.
  
  Jordan primarily engages with three writers: Meredith Kline and the Framework interpretation, John C. Collins' anthropomorphic days, and John Sailhammer's Limited Geography interpretation. These chapters are rich and valuable for their interpretation of the Bible as well as the rebuttals of these three positions.
  
  But the real gem of the book is chapter four, "Gnosticism Versus History." In this chapter, he demonstrates the gnostic tendencies in evangelicalism, evidenced by a number of things, including the novel interpretations of the creation account.
  
  For example, he writes:
  
  "The Klinean [Meredith Kline] version of the Framework Interpretation, as defended by Irons, is sensitive to our charge. Irons insists that the Klinean version of the Framework Interpretation does not deny the specific events of Genesis 1, that it only denies that they happened in the order presented by the text. It is only the days, not the events of the days, that are not historical, or better, not earthly."
  
  Jordan then goes on to argue that if this type of thing is challenged in the very first chapter of the first book of the Bible, what else might be so interpreted away? What of the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt? "Perhaps the sequence of ten plagues only took place in heaven; heavenly plagues as opposed to earthly plagues, as it were...Or maybe none of these events, as events, happened at all: The plagues on Egypt were not historical events; they are a foundational and archetypal myth for the nation of Israel, just as the six days of Genesis are a foundational and archetypal myth for the whole universe."
  
  What of the resurrection? "If we approach the Bible the way the nonhistorical interpreters of Genesis 1 want us to, the Christian religion gradually disappears into gnosticism. By the same token, if we take other passages of the Bible in their obvious historical sense and resolve seeming contradictions in the way the Church as always done, then we must do the same with Genesis 1." p. 94
  
  It is, of course, ironic, that in attempting to defend the Bible against liberalism, the defenders of orthodoxy open wide the door to liberalism by accepting their premises. Their defense is no defense at all; instead, it endangers the church by teaching the very methods of interpretation used by the liberals to those within the true church.
  
  Of course, Jordan doesn't only engage with these three writers, but he offers his own interpretation, which does far more than simply assert that the Bible means what it says about six 24 hour days. He rigorously engages with the text and is more than satisfactory.
  
  This is a great book, with the chapter on gnosticism being one of the most important chapters I've read in a very long time. Highly, highly recommended. I had this book on my wishlist for ten years longer than I should have.
• 
  Peter Jones

  Jordan is a very good exegete. In this book his dissection of the various views that do not see Genesis 1 as six literal 24 days is very good. He defends the literal six day view against Bruce Waltke and Meredith Kline's views. He points out how they create problems where none. I would have given this four stars, but Jordan's own view, while correct in many ways, is too laden with symbolism to be helpful to the novice. I do think much of his view point of Genesis 1 and the symbolism there is right, but in this book I felt he would have been better served to lay out simply and directly his own interpretation of Genesis 1. His chapter on gnosticism and history was superb. Overall, a good read, especially for those who are in evangelical circles where it is in vogue to reject the traditional reading of Genesis 1
• 
  Douglas Wilson

  Okay.
• 
  Kyle Grindberg

  This was the best book I've read on Genesis 1 and 2. Jordan always sticks very close to the text. Also, the chapter about Gnosticism is invaluable. Highly recommend it.
• 
  Jacob Hudgins

  Came to this hoping for a basic defense of a literal reading of the days of creation. What I found was…not that.
  
  Jordan critiques several Calvinist theologians who have rejected a literal reading (this is the first seven chapters; there are only 8). His main concern seems to be Waltke’s framework hypothesis. My issue is with his argumentation:
  
  On how there can be light in Gen 1:3 before the sun in Gen 1:14: “Rather obviously, the light came from the Spirit, who frequently appears in a Shekinah glory of light in the Bible”(p 48). In what universe is this “rather obvious”?
  
  On the seeming contradiction about plants in Gen 1:11 and 2:5: “Their creation was suspended until after man was made, for a reason implied in Genesis 3:18. God waited until He saw whether man would sin or not. If man did not sin, the shrubs would have been one kind of plant; since man sinned, they grew up as ‘thorns and thistles’”(p 54). I love declaring things emphatically that are purely guesswork!
  
  “On the second day God took some of the earthly waters up above the firmament, and this can only mean that they were taken into the angelic heavens”(p 100). Oh it can only mean that?
  
  These are only a sample of the bold, odd assertions he repeatedly makes—and then acts as though other views are the height of foolishness.
  
  Jordan argues frequently from tradition, insisting that no one before the 19th century questioned a literal reading of Genesis. While I suspect this is not true, I am also unmoved by it. Why can human interpreters not be wrong? Haven’t they been before (geocentrism)?
  
  Meanwhile, when given his chance to interpret Gen 1, his views are a bit outlandish. He also argues that angels are at work in the flow of electricity (and describes this as a fact, p 120).
  
  I could go on. Not recommended.
• 
  Kevin Godinho

  I bought this book mostly to read chapter 4 "Gnosticism Versus History." That chapter alone is worth the buy. Here is an excerpt to give you a taste of what James gets into:
  
  "Gnosticism is not an ordinary heresy, because it does not manifest itself as a set of defined beliefs. Rather, gnosticism is a tendency: the tendency to replace the historic facts of Christianity with philosophical ideas. Gnosticism is the tendency to de-historicize and de-physicalize the Christian religion. Gnosticism transforms history into ideology and facts into philosophy. Gnosticism tends to see religion as man's reflections about God and reality instead of as God's revelation of Himself and His Word to man."
  
  If you are looking for a book that defends the young earth creationist reading of Genesis, this is the one. There are a couple guys I get together with that lean toward theistic evolution. If you are anything like me and need someone to break down the traditional reading because you don't want to get carried away placing science over the Word, pick this book up. You won't be disappointed.
  
  There are so many gems in this book. James drops many theological insights from the beginning chapters of Genesis, most of which I've never come close to noticing before. It will take a lot more time and much further reading to even begin unpacking everything he discusses.
  
  --------------------
  
  Consider checking out by blog:
  
  https://laymansprogress.com/
  
  or following me on Instagram:
  @laymansprogress
• 
  Jason Bray

  I generally really liked it. Able commentary on the various symbolic representative theories of Genesis. Good reason in chapter 6, why the scientific arguments are not as solid as one might hope.
  
  However, it gets pretty in the weeds about various theories, which is more or less applicable, depending on the similarity of what you are arguing against to the views that he is arguing against.
  
  Also, his view, while it has much to recommend it, is a lot of novel discussions about chiastic structure and the like. Would have been better to fully flesh out these various things because the information he gives leaves you saying: okayyy interesting but, I don’t really feel you proved your point.
• 
  Lance Conley

  I think it’s a great book to read. While I disagree with some of his conclusions and am not a YEC myself in the mainstream sense (I think the truth is somewhere in the middle between old and young earth creationist personally), I think his book is a good work and he really does make brilliant points on chiastic structures. The traditional way of looking at Genesis I think he makes his case quite well.
• 
  William Schrecengost

  Really good. He doesn't go as indepth in his critics as Gentry does, instead Jordan boils down the argument to its foundational arguments and disproves those. One of the best parts was his Chiasm Appendice where he takes the lame excuse of Framework Advocates that they're just following the literary structure and thoroughly destroys it. I also enjoyed his Meredith Kline chapter. He takes a lot from Kline in his other works and I enjoy seeing scholars being able to disagree on different points.
• 
  Josh Shelton

  Jordan and Kline are the two most insightful writers I've read on Genesis 1-6
• 
  Shawn Paterson

  Tannins (aquatic dinosaurs) — the mighty Father
  Fishes (sea) — the Son (the Fisher of Men)
  Birds (air and land) — the hovering Spirit.
• 
  Landon Coleman

  Jordan offers some valid critiques of evangelicals who try to make the biblical creation account fit with the theories and assumptions of modern science. He highlights inconsistencies in interpretations, and he points out instances where evangelicals try to reconcile issues that are not in tension. Jordan rightly critiques his opponents for making claims instead of arguments, but in the final chapter Jordan does a good bit of this himself. His critiques are largely helpful, but his positive vision for making sense of Genesis 1 is a bit convoluted.
• 
  Brian

  Jordan was the right guy to write this book. He doesn't write like a typical 6-Day creationist who is simply after what Genesis says historically, but also understands the literary depths and has had detailed interactions with the symbolism of the text. Often the Old Earthers get way too easy a pass on this issue, getting to keep their claim to be reading Genesis as poetry, not history. Jordan ably shows this is not an 'either-or' situation. I might critique some of his tone, but overall a fine book.
• 
  Chris Comis

  Add this to your "Young Earth" arsenal. But Jordan takes a decidedly different twist on the whole debate, and primarily deals with the exegetical issues involved (e.g., various Framework views). He also has some interesting exegetical twists that set this work apart from most Fundamentalist Young Earthers.
• 
  G.M. Burrow

  If you know Mr. Jordan, you know this is good.
• 
  D. Ryan

  Especially liked his essay on the subjectivity of science and scientific data.
• 
  Brett

  Good defense of a literal six day creation.
• 
  Jacob Aitken

  Great response to Kline and soft-core evangelicalism. Decent chapter on Gnosticism.
• 
  James Aaron Kirkpatrick

  Reading James B. Jordan is like trying to take a drink from Niagara Falls. Great resource that I'll need to read many more times.
• 
  Sean McGowan

  Not bad.