Creation

In the Bible the doctrine of creation is based on divine revelation, this being particularly the case in the New Testament, where creation is seen in the light of the divine revelation in Jesus Christ and the “new creation” which has already become a spiritual reality through His work.

Biblical Creation Narratives

The early chapters of Genesis were, of course, not given to reveal the truths of physical science, but they recognize creation as marked by order, continuity, law, plastic power of productiveness in the different kingdoms, unity of the world and progressive advance. The Genesis cosmogony teaches a process of becoming, as well as a creation (see Evolution). That cosmogony has been recognized by Haeckel as meritoriously marked by the two great ideas of separation or differentiation, and of progressive development or perfecting of the originally simple matter. The Old Testament presents the conception of time-worlds or successive ages, but its real emphasis is on the energy of the Divine Word, bringing into being things that did not exist.

The narrative material in the early chapters of Genesis consists of ancient efforts at historical composition, and while scientific procedures were by no means unknown in Mesopotamia|Mesopotamian antiquity, they had no bearing upon the Biblical accounts or doctrines of creation.

Because the Genesis accounts of creation are “pre-scientific” in the western technological sense, and “unscientific” in the Sumerian sense also, it is necessary to urge caution when attempts are made to “reconcile” them to the accounts of creation furnished by the modern descriptive sciences. While there are numerous points of contact there are also natural and obvious differences in standpoint. Although it is perfectly legitimate to recognize that both Genesis and biological science propose some concept of derivation by descent, it is equally wrong to imagine that the Genesis account can be proved or disproved by reference to a theory of biological origins which is itself highly suspect in certain important areas.

It has to be recognized that as far as the Bible is concerned, the Old Testament account of creation does not preface the rest of Scripture as though it were an isolated attempt in antiquity to explain the origins of phenomena and human life. Indeed, if the first word of Genesis, b^erēs̱ẖîṯ, is translated correctly to read “by way of beginning” or “to begin with,” it will relate to something other than an absolute temporal start to creation. What the position of the creation narratives shows, in fact, is that for the ancient Semitic writers creation was the starting point of history. It formed the necessary stage upon which the drama of human sin and redemption could be enacted, a drama in which the nation of Israel, and later the Christian Church, played an important role. Thus it is difficult to separate the creation narratives from the material which follows, since it was the intent of the various writers in antiquity that such a connection should be observed, as much for theological as specifically historical reasons.

Old Testament creation narratives

The two accounts of creation in the Old Testament (Gen 1:1-2:4; 2:5-25) contain certain elements in common with the general Near East|Near Eastern tradition. These are the concept of a primary watery darkness and emptiness, as distinct from a state of chaos; the recognition of creation as a divine act accomplished ex nihilo, and the belief that man was created by divine intent for the service of the gods.

The first narrative

The first of these accounts is unique for its dignified monotheism and non-mythological nature. There are no struggles between deities or primordial powers, nor is there any attempt to exalt one race or city at the expense of another. The narrative does not support a “three storied universe” of heaven, earth and underworld, as is commonly assumed, and throughout it relates the incidence of phenomena to the control of a consciously organizing Mind. The standpoint of the narrative is an ideal one, being that of a geocentric observer who would experience the unfolding of creation and life differently from what an extra-terrestrial observer would. Given this standpoint the narrative conforms remarkably to what such descriptive sciences as astronomy, biology and geology have to say about the origins of the world. It would be some time before the initial cloud cover thinned out sufficiently to allow the rays of either end of the spectrum to reach the earth, and longer still before sunlight and moonlight as such were recognizable features of existence. Again, the placing of the vegetable creation before that of the animals is not as accidental as was formerly maintained, since the study of photosynthesis has shown that green plants furnish the oxygen necessary for animal existence.

On the whole, Genesis 1 has been badly translated. The first Hebrew word actually means “by way of beginning,” while the phrase “the heavens and the earth” is an expression known technically as merismus, in which antonymic pairs describe not elements, but the totality of the situation. Thus the phrase should be rendered simply “the cosmos.” The perplexing expression “there was an evening and a morning...” is yet another example of merismus, and should be rendered “this was the first (second etc.) complete phase of the whole cycle.”

The second narrative

The second narrative gave geographical identity to the home of man, placing it in Mesopotamia. There is no difficulty in this identification if the “rivers” Pishon and Gihon are regarded as “irrigation canals,” since there was no separate word for these two entities in Akkadian. The expression “tree of knowledge of good and evil” is also an example of merismus, and refers to a “tree of the entire range of moral experience.”

The story of the creation of woman is a classic example of the way in which the Ancient Israelites cloaked their deepest and most cherished truths in narrative form so as to protect them from the profane gaze of the scoffer. The word translated “rib” in English versions should be more properly rendered “an aspect of personality,” indicating that pristine man was broken down into male and female components, quite similar in character but needing compatible union before the wholeness of the pristine creation could be realized. This fundamental unity, of which marriage was representative, was emphasized by Jesus (Matt 19:5; Mark 10:7, 8. cf. 1 Cor 6:16) and related by Paul (Eph 5:31, 32) to the union between Christ and His Church.

The material dealing with creation in the first two chapters of Genesis should be treated as a unit for a proper understanding of the theology of creation. The second narrative, which deals more fully with the creation of man and woman, is complementary to the first, which speaks of the world being fashioned for man to occupy. The homogeneity of man with his environment is emphasized in Genesis 2:7, which speaks of him being created from “clay,” i.e., the basic terrestrial elements. When the divine afflatus permeates man he becomes nep̱es or “personality.” This emphasis upon the integration of the human personality as a normative, hea lthy condition is found elsewhere in the Old Testament and specifically in the New Testament, where the man who is in Christ becomes a new creation (2 Cor 5:17).

Are the Two Accounts Contradictory?

It is a mistake to assume that the two Genesis narratives are duplicates, for they actually complement one another. To say they are contradictory is like saying that an atlas begins with two contradictory maps. A map of the world and a map of the United States would overlap. The first would include a great deal of territory not included in the second. The second would include a great deal of detail not mentioned in the first.

In the case of the creation narratives, the first outlines the broad processes of creation and shows how all things emerged from the creative power of God, while the second pays greater attention to the creation of man and sets him with his mate in a specific geographical location.

This is exactly the relation between the two accounts. Gen.1.1-Gen.1.31 describes the creation of the universe as a whole. Gen.2.4-Gen.2.25 covers one special segment of that creation. The linking word (Gen.2.4) is translated in NIV as “account,” but this is inadequate: it must mean “subsequent/emergent account,” for the word (tōledōth) both in its individual meaning and in its Old Testament use tells how something emerges from what has preceded. In this way, Gen.2.4 “steps back” into Gen.1.1-Gen.1.31 to begin the study of “what happened next,” how out of God’s creative work there came the beginnings of human life and history on earth. This explains the often-alleged differences and supposed contradictions between the chapters, for Gen.2.4ff. alludes only to the creative work as a whole insofar as it is necessary to do so in recording the beginnings of human history. It is reasonable, therefore, that Gen.2.4ff. gives a more detailed account of the creation of man but says nothing about that of matter, light, heavenly bodies, or plants.

Again, it is sometimes said that Gen.1.1-Gen.1.31 begins with a watery chaos and Gen.2.4ff. with a dry earth. But there is no contradiction, because the two have different starting points in the creative acts of God. Gen.2.4ff. does not describe the creation of vegetation, as some assert; it simply mentions the planting of a garden. It is hardly reasonable to insist that God created man and then put him aside while the Garden was planted and given time to mature. The verbs in Gen.2.8-Gen.2.9 must be understood (as is perfectly proper to do) as pluperfects, and the same is true of Gen.2.19 where the previous creation of animals is alluded to. Gen.2.4ff. does not contradict Gen.1.1-Gen.1.31 in any way; instead, it opens up our understanding of the wonder of the creation of human beings and introduces us to the beginnings of human history on earth.

Biblical doctrine of creation

The thought of the ancient Hebrews consistently related all existing phenomena to God as the one ground or source of existence. Because of this specifically monistic attitude there could never be any place in their concept of creation for the kind of dualism entertained by some other religions. To God as the sole Creator belonged the responsibility for the world of nature and men, and though there were facets of His creation which did not reflect His high moral and ethical character, even these were ultimately reconcilable to belief in the activity of one creative deity. The relationship between God and His creation is a contingent one, for it is the Lord who makes all things (Isa 44:24), and His handiwork is absolutely dependent upon Him for its ordering and survival. When the Old Testament writers spoke about the idea of creation they were making a religious affirmation to the effect that God was sovereign and Lord of the cosmos.

Creation by the Word

As a regularized expression of the way in which God formed the world, the idea of creation by the Word is rather late. It is, however, implicit in Genesis 1, and also in the thought of some Old Testament writers, notably the psalmists (Ps 33:9; 148:5; cf. Isa 45:12), who emphasized the transcendent majesty of the Creator. The best expressions of this concept are found in the New Testament (John 1:1-3; Heb 11:3; and 2 Pet 3:5, 6), which also attributed dynamic qualities to the Word.

The latter was synonymous with that sovereign power which shaped the course of history and the lives of men alike, being supremely manifest in the creation of the world. The account in Genesis 1 is marked by the phrase “and God said” at the beginning of each new stage in the creative process. This situation may be of more than passing interest if the “wave” theory of creation is scientifically correct, since it would depict God at work on the basic units from which the cosmos was constructed. Whatever the meaning of the phrase, there can be no doubt that the narrative as a whole ascribes the processes of creation to the free and spontaneous activity of God. The Word of the Lord is that power which when placed in the mouths of the prophets, makes them spokesmen for God and gives them a position of authority in dispensing the divine oracles (Jer 1:9, 10). The Word also has a vitality which makes it sharper than any two-edged sword (Heb 4:12; cf. Rev 19:13-15), and in the person of the incarnate Logos (John 1:1-18) establishes a relationship of a particularly efficacious sort between the Creator and His creation.

Creation ex nihilo

As a formal expression of belief this concept is again a comparatively late development (2 Macc 7:28; cf. Rom 4:17; Heb 11:3), enhancing the idea of the creative sovereignty of God. Creatio ex nihilo as a philosophical postulate is undoubtedly too abstract for the Hebrew mind to entertain, and while it is not specifically stated in Genesis 1, it is certainly implicit in the narrative. The reader is meant to understand that the worlds were not fashioned from any pre-existing material, but out of nothing, and that this proceeded from the activity of the divine Word. Prior to the creative fiat there was thus no other kind of phenomenological existence. Creatio ex nihilo, therefore, rules out the idea that matter is eternal, and also rejects any kind of dualism in the universe in which another entity, power or existence stands over against God and outside His control. The Creator of the world is thus not bound by chaos, as in the Babylonian creation myth, which portrayed the gods emerging from the waters of chaos. Indeed, the concept of a created chaos was foreign to the Genesis narrative, which maintained that creation was an ordered process and as such the opposite of chaos. Furthermore, the concept of creation from nothing affirms that God is separate from His creation, and denies that the latter is a phenomenal manifestation of the Absolute, as Pantheism maintains.

Man’s place in creation

The concept of creation out of nothing applies, of course, to the formulation of the cosmos, and does not exhaust the Biblical teaching on the subject of creation. Thus man was not created ex nihilo, but from previously prepared material, the “dust from the ground” (Gen 2:7), as were also the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air (Gen 2:19). This has been described as secondary creation, to denote an activity which makes use of material already in existence but which is nevertheless integral to the concept of primary creation. The harmony which is represented in the world and its inhabitants is in fact a divinely-imposed order in which each creature fulfills the will of God. In every instance the creative fiat not merely brings entities into existence but relates them to some specific function within the larger structure.

Because of the personal relationship which exists between God and His creation there can be no room in Scripture for the idea of “nature” as an autonomous power set in motion by a First Cause. God is depicted as being at all times in control of the world (cf. Job 38:33; Jer 5:24, etc.), which needs His continual undergirding if it is to continue (cf. Ps 104:29, 30). Where there is the expression of the regularity of natural forces, as in the promise given to Noah (Gen 8:22), it is based upon the covenant mercies and faithfulness of God. While the world was intended to display the glory of God, it was also fashioned as the dwelling place for man (Isa 45:18), the crown of divine creation. Man (āḏām ẖa̱ was fashioned from the ground (hā^aḏāmāh) to which he ultimately returns when he dies. While the animals and plants stand in an indirect relationship to the Creator, since they are brought forth by the earth, man is the direct product of creative activity, and is dignified in a special manner by being the recipient of the “living breath” of God. Stress is laid upon the nature of man as the highest form of created life in both accounts, where in Genesis 1:26, 27 homo sapiens is described as made in the divine image. This can only mean that man in his complete bodily existence was patterned after the image of God.

The fact that the same concept was applied to Seth as a son of Adam (Gen 5:3) argues firmly against any attempts to reduce the imago dei to man’s “spiritual self,” “soul” or some such concept. The reference in Genesis 2:7 is also illuminating in this connection, for it speaks of man becoming a nepes hayyāh. The rendering “living soul” is less satisfactory than that of “personality,” since it is the totality of man which is again in view. Hebrew thought consistently viewed man as a personality, and the numerous Old Testament references to the relationship between emotions and bodily changes demonstrate a concern for the integration of the personality of a kind which has been re-emphasized by modern psychosomatic medicine. Man is not just a “body” into which a “soul” has been placed. Instead he is a living personality which has physical extension in time and place. When living by divine law he is neither “body” nor “soul,” but a unified being in which all aspects of existence are designed to function in an integrated manner to the glory of God. Because man is in effect the living image of God upon earth, he is given the task of serving as the divine representative and ordering the ways of those aspects of creation which are put under his control (Gen 1:28).

Though he has been made in the image of God, man is still inferior to the deity in stature (Ps 8:6-8). Nevertheless he is crowned with glory and honor because he has been made esp. to enjoy fellowship with the Creator. Unlike the animal creation, which has to obey instinctive impulses and laws, man has been given a freedom of will as part of his spiritual heritage. While his prime vocation is to serve God in the world of nature, he is unique in being the only creature which can respond to God in disobedience as well as in faith and trust. He can revile God as well as praise Him, and can separate himself from the divine presence just as easily as he can have fellowship with God. Certainly the latter function was the clear intention of the Creator, since no other species can articulate the divine praises. Thus man was made to communicate meaningfully and intelligently with God, an ideal which was subsequently attributed to the nation in covenant relationship with Him (Isa 43:21).

Threats to creation

The creation narratives contain no hint of foreboding for the future, for everything has the seal of perfection stamped on it. Until the declension of man and woman from pristine grace, the prospect for the future was one of continuous and untrammelled fellowship with God. When sin entered human experience it cast a blemish upon all created life (cf. Hos 4:7; Rom 8:21, 22) and threatened the future of man by separating his personality from God. Thereafter it became necessary for the Creator to make specific provision for human spiritual needs, first by the promise of one who should effectively break the power of the tempter (cf. Gen 3:15), then by the provision of a sacrificial system which would enable the penitent worshiper to renew his fellowship with God, and finally by revealing that at some specific point in history the Creator’s purpose would be entirely realized, and a new heaven and earth would replace the existing order of things. The end of the sequence does not seem to have concerned the earlier figures in Hebrew history, and it was only as the covenant relationship became progressively weakened that an other-worldly perspective came into prominence. Even then the eschatology of both pre-and postexilic prophets tended to think of a recreated theocratic society upon this earth, rather than the newly-fashioned heaven and earth of New Testament thought (Rev 21:1), although Isaiah emphasized recreation in the New Testament sense (Isa 66:22).

Consistently throughout the Old Testament, however, the greatest menace to the divine creation was the fact of sin, particularly where it represented a violation of the covenant obligations. The covenant community was itself a special creation, intended as a witness in pagan society to the nature and power of the one true God and a means of His expression in the world. Many of the prophets diagnosed the national malaise in terms of sin and rebellion against God (Isa 1:3; Jer 8:7; Hos 14:1, etc.), and Hosea went so far as to assert that the perverted will (cf. Jer 17:9) of Israel had even affected the natural creation (Hos 4:3).

The new creation in Christ

The New Testament authors agreed with Judaism that God alone was the creator of the world through His Word, but in the light of the fuller revelation of God in Christ they viewed the process of creation Christologically. In Jesus all things cohered (Col 1:17), and the unity of creation in Him was demonstrated further as part of the divine purpose in history (Eph 1:9, 10). He it is who upholds the universe by His powerful word (Heb 1:3), and brings meaning to the historical process as the Savior and Redeemer of the world. In the light of this conviction it was possible for the members of the primitive Church to assert that human salvation was predestined in Christ before the founding of the world (Matt 25:34; Eph 1:4; 1 Pet 1:20, etc.).

History and other cosmogony

Mesopotamian cosmogony

No one Mythology|mythological account has been found to date which deals specifically with the creation of the cosmos in the sense in which the first chapter of Genesis does. Most of the texts referring to creation are part of other literary material involving legendary persons, the organization of early society, and the struggles between the various gods of the pantheons. Some of the Mesopotamian creation stories were linked with particular cities such as Nippur, Lagash, and Shuruppak, and narrated the activities of the creative deity. Thus Enki, the god of the deep and of wisdom, made Nippur the base for a subsequent extension of his influence in Sumeria, creating mankind after the pantheon had been completed, and developing all the early cultural forms in his favorite city.

A further myth relating to the exploits of Enki and Ninhursag told how Enki led his forces against Nammu, the wicked primeval deity of the sea, after which with the help of Nin-mah, the earth mother-goddess, he created man from clay. Sumeria|Sumerian cosmogony found its most popular adaptation, however, in the creation myth known as Enuma elish (“When from above”), recovered from the ruined library of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh but extant also in fragments from Ashur, Uruk and Kish. This epic mentioned two mythical divine personages of Sumerian tradition, Apsu, the underground sweetwater reservoir, and Tiamat, the salt water ocean. Marduk, patron god of Babylon, slew the latter in battle, established the earth and organized the celestial constellations. The sixth tablet of the epic described how man was created from the blood of Kingu, an ally of Tiamat. Following Sumerian tradition man was regarded as being vastly inferior to the gods, constituting almost an afterthought of divine creativity. Another Sumerian myth spoke of the paradise known as Dilmun, a place now identified with the small desert island of Bahrein in the Persian Gulf, and which in antiquity was a focal point of maritime trade between Mesopotamia and India. In this locale the mother-goddess Ninhursag was believed to have produced offspring painlessly without normal labor. The god Enki decided to eat some of the plants which grew in this paradise, but became ill as a result. The curse was lifted and Enki was restored to health by the intervention of a specially created goddess Nin.ti, whose name means the “lady of the rib” and “the lady who makes live.”

Egyptian cosmogony

In predynastic Egypt the cult of Re at Heliopolis maintained that the god had emerged from the waters of the Underworld and was self-created. From him came the other deities such as Isis, Osiris and Set, and these were followed by the creation of human beings. The cult of Ptah in the Thinite period of Memphis gave its chief deity priority over all other gods, regarding him as contemporary with the Underworld waters themselves. Ptah was the great cosmic mind who by the projection of his thought produced the world and its contents. Even the other gods were only manifestations of his creative ideas, and in his utterances there resided almighty power. Yet another ancient cult, that of Thoth of Hermopolis, credited its god with the creation of the world, the control of natural cycles and the bestowing of culture upon the human race. Thoth was venerated as the god of wisdom and was honored by a number of titles which reflected his creative genius.

Greek cosmogony

The deities of ancient Greece were not generally held to be responsible for creation, but instead were themselves the creatures of antecedent forces which they replaced. The Theogony of Hesiod gave Chaos the chief position in the pantheon and spoke of his successor as earth who, impregnated by heaven, became the mother of all living things. In the Orphic myth the great creator Phanes emerged from an egg, created the universe and the ancient heroes of the Golden Age, and then retired until his grandson Zeus swallowed him and his creation, after which Zeus recreated the existing world order. The Greek myths of creation varied considerably in matters of detail, and spoke less of creation as such than development through procreation from vague beginnings.

A Perspective on the Length of "Days" in Genesis

The length of the creative days of Gen.1.1-Gen.1.31 is not stated in the Bible. The Hebrew word “day” may mean a period of light between two periods of darkness, a period of light together with the preceding period of darkness, or a long period of time. All three usages occur often in the Bible. No one of them is exactly twenty-four hours, though the second one is near it. There is no indisputable indication as to which of the three is meant. The Bible gives no specific statement as to how long ago matter was created, how long ago the first day of Creation began, or when the sixth day ended.

On the seventh day (Gen.2.2-Gen.2.3) God ceased from his labors. God refers to this as an example for Israel to have six days of labor followed by one day of rest (Exod.20.11). No end to the rest of the seventh day is mentioned. As far as the Bible tells us, God’s rest from creating still continues. Additionally, some hold that there is a long gap between Heb.11.1 and Heb.11.2, in which God’s perfect creation came into chaos through a great catastrophe. Hebrew syntax permits such a view but does not require it.

Creation and Evolution

Creation is certainly not disproved by evolution, which does not explain the origin of the homogeneous stuff itself, and does not account for the beginning of motion within it. Of the original creative action, lying beyond mortal ken or human observation, science—as concerned only with the manner of the process--is obviously in no position to speak. Creation may, in an important sense, be said not to have taken place in time, since time cannot be posited prior to the existence of the world. The difficulties of the ordinary hypothesis of a creation in time can never be surmounted, so long as we continue to make eternity mean simply indefinitely prolonged time. Augustine was, no doubt, right when, from the human standpoint, he declared that the world was not made in time, but with time. Time is itself a creation simultaneous with, and conditioned by, world-creation and movement. To say, in the ordinary fashion, that God created in time, is apt to make time appear independent of God, or God dependent upon time. Yet the time-forms enter into all our psychological experience, and a concrete beginning is unthinkable to us.

A further Perspective on Genesis and Evolution

There is much discussion about the question of “evolution” in relation to the Creation, but the word “evolution” is used in many different ways. If taken in its historic sense (the theory that everything now existing has come into its present condition as a result of natural development, all of it having proceeded by natural causes from one rudimentary beginning), such a theory is sharply contradicted by the divine facts revealed in Gen.1.1-Gen.1.31-Gen.2.1-Gen.2.25. These chapters indicate a number of specific divine commands bringing new factors into existence. God’s activity is indicated throughout the entire Creation narrative. It is explicitly stated several times that plants and animals are to reproduce “after their kind.” Moses nowhere states how large a “kind” is, and there is no ground for equating it with any particular modern definition of “species.” Yet it is clear that Genesis teaches that there are a number (perhaps a large number) of “kinds” of plants and of animals, which cannot reproduce in such a way as to evolve from one into the other. Nothing in the Bible denies the possibility of change and development within the limits of a particular “kind.” Moreover, the creation of Adam is sharply distinguished from other aspects of creation, and the creation of Eve is described as a distinct act of God. Gen.2.7 (in the Hebrew) clearly teaches that Adam did not exist as an animate being before he was a man, created after the image of God.

First Cause

The universe, we feel sure, has been caused; its existence must have some ground; even if we held a philosophy so idealistic as to make the scheme of created things one grand illusion, an illusion so vast would still call for some explanatory Cause. Even if we are not content with the conception of a First Cause, acting on the world from without and antecedently in time, we are not yet freed from the necessity of asserting a Cause. An underlying and determining Cause of the universe would still need to be postulated as its Ground.

Even a universe held to be eternal would need to be accounted for--we should still have to ask how such a universe came to be. Its endless movement must have direction and character imparted to it from some immanent ground or underlying cause. Such a self-existent and eternal World-Ground or First Cause is, by an inexorable law of thought, the necessary correlate of the finitude, or contingent character of the world. God and the world are not to be taken simply as cause and effect, for modern metaphysical thought is not content with such a mere ens extra-mundanum for the Ground of all possible experience. God, self-existent Cause of the ever-present world and its phenomena, is the ultimate Ground of the possibility of all that is.

"Wisdom" in Creation

In Old Testament books, as the Psalms, Proverbs, and Jeremiah, the creation is expressly declared to be the work of Wisdom--a Wisdom not disjoined from Goodness, as is yet more fully brought out in the Book of Job. The heavens declare the glory of God, the world manifests or reveals Him to our experience, as taken up and interpreted by the religious consciousness. The primary fact of the beginning of the time-worlds--the basal fact that the worlds came into being by the Word of God--is something apprehensible only by the power of religious faith, as the only principle applicable to the case (Heb 11:3). Such intuitive faith is really an application of first principles in the highest--and a truly rational one (see Logos). In creation, God is but expressing or acting out the conscious Godhood that is in Him. In it the thought of His absolute Wisdom is realized by the action of His perfect Love. It is philosophically necessary to maintain that God, as the Absolute Being, must find the end of creation in Himself. If the end were external to, and independent of, Him, then would He be conditioned thereby.

Bibliography and Further Reading

H. W. Robinson, Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (1946), 4-33.

E. Jacob, Old Testament Theology (1958), 136-150.

G. A. F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament (1959), 107-118.

James Orr, Christian View of God and the World, 1st edition, 1893.

J. Iverach, Christianity and Evolution, 1894.

S. Harris, God the Creator and Lord of All, 1897.

A. L. Moore, Science and the Faith, 1889.

B. P. Bowne, Studies in Theism, new edition, 1902.

G. P. Fisher, Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, new edition, 1902.

J. Lindsay, Recent Advances in Theistic Philosophy of Religion, 1897.

A. Dorner, Religionsphilosophie, 1903.

J. Lindsay, Studies in European Philosophy, 1909.

O. Dykes, The Divine Worker in Creation and Providence, 1909.

J. Lindsay, The Fundamental Problems of Metaphysics, 1910.

N. H. Ridderbos, Is There Conflict Between Gen.1.1-Gen.1.31 and Natural Science? 1957.

L. Gilkey, Maker of Heaven and Earth, 1959.

F. D. Kidner, Genesis (TOld TestamentC), 1967.

J. A. Motyer, “Old Testament Theology,” in NBC Revised, 1970, pp. 26-27.

C. Westermann, Creation, 1974; D. J. Wiseman, Clues to Creation in Genesis, 1977.