The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days of Creation

Bottom line up front: This is a very good source for Day-Age and Framework introduction and a disappointing treatment of the 24-hour view.The book was edited by David Hagopian, but the real meat of this book comes from three of the six listed authors: J. Ligon Duncan, III, Hugh Ross, and Lee Irons. The other three authors (David Hall, Gleason Archer, and Meredith Kline) provide inputs for the book to varying degrees; however, the primary thrust of the text comes from the first three authors.- J. Ligon Duncan, III presents the 24-Hour View and hails from my home town of Greenville, SC. He pastors a PCA church. He has authored several books, but is far from being the long-devoted scholar of Creation science with this apparently being his first publication on the subject.- Hugh Ross may need no introduction to those who study creation science, as he is a lead scholar in Intelligent Design. He has authored a myriad of books on the subject and presents the Day-Age View.- Lee Irons is a relative newcomer to authored works in creation science and currently seeks his PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary. Unlike Duncan, Irons' focus is heavily on creation science and he presents the Framework View. The late Meredith Kline (2007) aided Irons and was a well respected scholar on the subject of the Framework view.Theme:The book takes the common published debate format where each author provides an essay for the other authors to critique. Unlike many other multiple-viewpoint books, this editor allows the primary essay's author to rebut the critiques. Personally, I like this technique as it allows the author to have the final words on his own work, and it allows him to point out any issues with critiques.Some major topics discusses in the book are:Meaning of the Hebrew word yomRelationship of Day 1 and Day 4Literal versus figurative views of Gen 1 & 2Chronological issues of the daysHistorical interpretation of Gen 1 & 2These aforementioned topics are not laid out as an agenda, but seem to be rehashed by each author. Of these, I believe interpretation history is the least important as one is focusing on a fallible person with finite knowledge that likely has less information than is currently held. Unfortunately, much of the book discusses historical viewpoints and interpretations of these church fathers' statements. Despite this, the key focus is literal versus figurative language. Duncan states the literal view is the only method of interpretation, while Ross states the author's intended meaning shows the word "day" to mean a period of time significantly greater than 24 hours. Irons goes on to reduce the importance of yom's interpretation and discusses Genesis in a completely figurative light.The tenor of the book, especially surrounding the first view (24-Hour View), is one of the reasons I gave the book 4 stars. While this is a complex and heated topic, scholars in academia should rise above the emotional and treat each other with respect. Unfortunately, Duncan did not do this, and his writing often shows a remarkable edge of emotion. I believe this discredits his writing greatly. Furthermore, he ignores valid critiques and builds straw men of the other viewpoints which he knocks down with flawed arguments. Truly, this text would have been better served by having a dedicated 24-hour View creation science scholar presenting the case. I do not say this because I disagree with a literal 24-hour creation (I am personally searching for answers and am teetering between 24-hour and Day-Age views.)Ross, in his trademark style, provides a very thorough explanation of his view and counters many objections before they are levied. While I do not agree with Ross on many things, I respect his unique status of being one of a few authors who has a deep understanding of both hard sciences and theology. Most have an elementary understanding of one side and a doctoral comprehension of the other.The third view of the Framework View is novel and interesting. Personally, I avoid interpreting Scripture in figurative terms in the manner Iron presents. While I found his argument the least convincing of the three views, his argument is well made and brings up several significant issues needing further discussion.Overall, the book is worth adding to your library. This book ignores several popular creation views such as Theistic Evolution and the Gap Theory, but there are plenty of other books to discuss these viewpoints. Hence, this books serves as a good introduction for the Day Age theory and the Framework theory. There are some significantly scholarly treatments of topics with detailed end notes in many of the essays and rebuttals. This will provide good sources for future study. Try to overlook the harsh attitude by the one author, and look for a better treatment of the 24-hour viewpoint.

This was not exactly a fun read for me. In fact, it was textbook tedious. It is the presentation of three positions on Genesis: 1.The six literal 24 hr. day theory 2. The day/age theory 3. The framework theory. Each presentation is then critiqued by the proponents of the other two views. The upshot of reading this book for me is that I am still not completely convinced of any of these views. After reading Hank Hanegraaff's book "Has God Spoken," I believe he holds with the framework theory, which seems to me to be somewhat contrived. It is a mountain upon which I am not prepared to die.

The editor of this book did a fantastic job in allowing all three sides to present their information without biased outside editing. Each side presenting very good information and excellent critiques of the others. This book is a great starter for one who is brave enough to dive into the world of Genesis 1.Recommend 'lost world of Genesis 1' by John Walton

Really great book. It presents each view and then after each view is the response of the other experts holding different views. It's really great.

The essays and responses were interesting and helpful as a starting-off point for our graduate student theology discussion group. Unfortunately, the quality of this edition is rather poor. Numerous typos plague the text, including many pairs of words joined together without spaces and words split and hyphenated in the middle of a line as if they had originally been broken over two lines. One is still able to get at the meaning, but it is quite distracting and makes the essays feel of lower quality by association.

The 3 theories were not convincing, further I found the debate not to be very supportive biblical or historically. I did like the science debate. Why didn't these authors write about the thought about evolution. i really think some of these debates among evangelicals just makes it that much mor confusing!!!!

The comparisons of the three views have been extremely helpful to my husband who is set to teach about Creation vs Evolution in the fall and winter. The authors are leading proponents of their positions and the interplay between them is enlightening.

not for the uninformed - much to chew

Excellent defence of the Framework / Non-Concordist view. Certainly, a must-read for ministers who attempt to read science into Genesis!