There are 10 primary interpretations of Genesis chapter 1, however only one represents a true Biblical perspective on origins. This is because it is the only perspective that starts with the Bible and interprets the chapter based on what it actually says rather than trying to read anything into it. It is also the only one that is fully consistent with the rest of scripture including the rationale of Jesus dying on the cross in payment for our sin.
In this article we will look at all 10 perspectives pointing out the benefits and problems with each of them. We will conclude with pointing out which one is not only the most Biblical, but the only one that can be truly considered to be Biblical in nature,
The Allegorical Interpretation
This perspective interprets the creation account symbolically, understanding it as a story rich in spiritual truth rather than literal history. Themes such as order, purpose, and divine sovereignty are emphasized, and the "days" are seen as a poetic device.
This is one of the more liberal interpretations and it overlaps some of the concepts of other liberal interpretations. The thing to note is that it reduces the account in genesis to nothing but symbolic poetry that eliminates any connection with actual history. They tend to stretch this notion to include everything within genesis, furthermore they tend to stretch it to include all five books of Moses.
This view not only places death before sin, but it also does away with the fall as well. This allows it to fit perfectly into a view where all people are seen as fundamentally good with no real need for salvation. Ultimately the only reasons for taking this approach are not wanting to face up to sin, while squeezing the billions of years from atheistic mythology into the Bible.
The Theological and Liturgical Interpretation
In this view, Genesis 1 is seen as a theological statement about God as the Creator and the ultimate source of all life. Some regard it as a hymn or text meant for worship, celebrating God’s power and intentionality in creation rather than providing a scientific explanation. What is interesting about the idea that it is simply a theological statement about God as creator is that it also makes him fundamentally a liar because he deliberately did not give us accurate information on how he created.
This is very close to an allegorical interpretation, it just has some different nuances to it. Once again it puts death before sin Causing problems for the entire purpose for Jesus Christ death burial and resurrection. It likewise fits well into a universalist approach to salvation while squeezing billions of years into the Bible.
The Cosmic Temple View
This interpretation suggests that the creation narrative is describing the inauguration of the world as God’s temple. The language of Genesis 1 is seen as symbolic of sacred space, with the seven days reflecting the ancient practice of temple dedication.
Unlike the previous two this one at least tries to connect genesis chapter one with something real, sort of. It still tends to make the genesis account more symbolic than real, but it does so by connecting it to a cosmic temple dedication rather than a physical creation.
It leaves a lot open about such things as the fall of man and at what point does the Biblical account become actual history. Furthermore, the primary purpose behind this idea is trying to squeeze billions of years into the Bible.
The Ancient Near Eastern Context Interpretation
This approach examines the creation account in the context of ancient Near Eastern cultures. It highlights similarities and differences between Genesis 1 and creation myths, such as those found in Mesopotamia, to emphasize the unique theological message of the Bible.
This is also based on the interpretation of liberal scholars in general of the- creation myths of the ancient near east. In other words, they are assuming that the perspective that modern scholars have on those myths is the correct one and that they are not misunderstanding them.
This interpretation is basically saying that God lied to the children of Israel to accommodate their specific expectations about creation, rather than providing a realistic depiction. It also ignores the fact that God could have easily given a realistic depiction that still met expectations of the ancient Israelites.
However, ultimately the entire reason for inventing this approach is to be able to add billions of years into the Bible. Like all others it includes death before sin and does great harm to the gospel.
The Framework Interpretation
The framework view sees Genesis 1 as a literary and theological text rather than a chronological account. It emphasizes the structure of the chapter, where days 1-3 correspond to the formation of realms (light/darkness, sky/sea, land/vegetation) and days 4-6 focus on filling these realms with inhabitants (sun/moon, birds/fish, animals/humans).
This is also a highly figurative interpretation that likewise puts death before sin and thereby undermines the gospel and Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross along with his resurrection on the third day. After all, what was the point of it if the penalty for sin was not death. In such an interpretation was there even a fall and send to be saved from?
Once again, the main reason for this interpretation is as an excuse for inserting billions of years and universal common descent into the Bible.
The Evolutionary Creationism (or Theistic Evolution) View
Adherents of this interpretation hold that God used the process of evolution as a means of creation. Genesis 1 is seen as compatible with so-called modern scientific understanding, and the text’s purpose is viewed as conveying theological truths rather than scientific details.
This of course is yet another case of taking the genesis account figuratively has an excuse for accepting in old earth in universal common descent evolution. The difference between these and the previous views is that it is a lot more honest about it. The big Question about this view is when does God start giving us actual history and stop being figurative. From this perspective did Jesus literally die on the cross and rise again from the grave? Once you start down this road where does it end.
This view exists for the sole purpose of incorporating both billions of years in universal common descent into the Bible. In doing so it has death before sin, assuming that the fall of man is even considered. It does great harm to the gospel by undermining the entire purpose for Jesus suffering and dying on the cross and rising again on the third day to save us from our sins and the penalty thereof. Once again it is at least one of the more honest ones, in what it is trying to do.
The Progressive Creationism View
This interpretation suggests that while God created life over long periods, He intervened directly at key points to bring about new forms of life. It blends aspects of the day-age theory and special creation.
This one is a slight improvement over theistic evolution in that it has God doing things rather than relying on totally naturalistic and essentially atheistic processes and maybe guiding the process. In other words, it actually qualifies as a form of creation even if weakly.
Just like the others it undermines the gospel by undermining the death burial and resurrection of Jesus as payment for our sin because it places death before the fall of man assuming it is recognized at all.
Also like the others, its sole purpose is to insert billions of years and universal common descent evolution into the Bible.
The Day-Age Theory
In this interpretation, the "days" mentioned in Genesis 1 are not literal 24-hour periods but rather long epochs or ages of time. This view seeks to harmonize the Biblical account with so called scientific findings about the age of the Earth and the progression of evolutionary processes.
It tries to use the fact that the word day in different contexts can mean something other than a 24-hour day. It ignores the fact that the context of Genesis chapter 1 strongly indicates literal 24-hour days by both a number and the reference to evening and morning.
Furthermore, like all the others this interpretation undermines the gospel, by placing death before sin, which its proponents probably do not even take into account. It undermines the entire reason for Jesus suffering and dying on the cross in rising again from the dead.
The Gap Theory
This interpretation posits a temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") and Genesis 1:2 ("The earth was without form and void"). Advocates of this view suggest that there may have been an earlier creation that was destroyed, making room for the events described in the rest of the chapter.
This one is the most conservative of the view so far. It at least tries to take the genesis account itself for what it says and does not imply that God was lying to us. It was popularized among conservative Christians by C. I. Scofield in his study Bible. It is also one of the oldest in that it was invented shortly after Charles Lyell first proposed his old earth uniformitarian theory of geology. Unfortunately, by and large the church through scriptural geologists of the time under the bus and decided to reinterpret scripture to embrace the new ideas.
There are three major problems with this interpretation. The first is that verses 1 and 2 are not chronological with each other but verse 2 is merely describing the original state of the Earth at the time. The second is the fact that there is no reference of a lucifer's flood any place in the Bible. The idea was invented solely for the purpose of creating the gap. The third problem is that like all old Earth ideas it requires there to be death before sin because all the creatures buried in the rock layers had to have died, this causes problems for the significance of the gospel and the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Finally, the only purpose for which it was developed was to try to squeeze the millions in billions of years invented by uniformitarian geology into the biblical account.
The Literal Interpretation (Young Earth)
This view holds that Genesis 1 is a factual, historical account of creation. According to this perspective, God created the universe, Earth, and all life within six 24-hour days. Those who adhere to this interpretation often see the text as aligning with a young Earth creationist view, positing that the Earth is thousands rather than billions of years old.
This is the only interpretation of genesis chapter 1 that comes directly from the Bible and does not attempt to insert any external ideas. It simply takes the Bible at its word and interprets it based on what it actually says not on what we wanted to mean.
This interpretation comes right out of the text because it drives home the word day referring to an ordinary 24-hour day by the repeated use of the following pattern in the evening and the morning were the nth day. Either one of these the use of a number or connecting it to evening and morning would indicate an ordinary day, but God uses both repeatedly. The only legitimate way of understanding this passage is that God created heaven and earth in six literal 24-hour days.
The only problem with this interpretation is that it disagrees with The Big Bang to man atheistic mythology that is commonly pushed by evolutionists as science. However, thanks to considerable amounts of research on the part of creationists who have degrees in science there is increasing scientific evidence that actually supports this interpretation.
It fits along with the gospel and the Biblical principle of death being the penalty for sin because there is no death before the fall of man. It perfectly fits with the suffering and death of Jesus on the cross along with his resurrection from the grave three days later. Only with this interpretation does it all actually work.
All of the other interpretations mentioned above have one thing in common they are all trying to find an excuse for accepting the billions of years and evolutionary interpretations associated with The Big Bang to man atheistic mythology, by finding some way of putting it into the Bible. None of these actually work and none of them are actually Biblical.
The only way of interpreting genesis chapter 1 is by interpreting it literally as indicating that God created the world in 6 literal days. It's not that hard to understand, the only reason for rejecting it is you want to sound scholarly and be accepted by atheists who won't accept you anyhow.
