Commentaries on Genesis

Here is a list of commentaries on Genesis. They are listed alphabetically by author's or editor's last name. A short list of recommended first books on the topic is here.

Genesis
Robert Alter, ed.
New York: W.W. Norton, 1996.

The Book of Genesis
Basil Ferris Campbell Atkinson
Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.

Genesis 37-50: A Handbook on the Hebrew Texts
David W. Baker and Jason A. Riley
Baylor Press, 2014.

Genesis: An Expositional Commentary
James Montgomery Boice
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998.

Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary
Thomas L Brodie
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Genesis: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching
Walter Brueggemann
Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.

Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1 (Adam to Noah)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.

Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part II (Noah to Abraham)
Umberto Cassuto
Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press, 1961.

(This volume includes a Fragment of Part III. Cassuto died before he was able to complete his Commentary on the Pentateuch.)

Original Sinners: A New Interpretation of Genesis
John R. Coats
Kindle E-book, 2009.

Commentary on Genesis: The First Book of Moses
James Burton Coffman
Abilene, Texas: ACU Press, 1985.

Genesis
David W Cotter
Collegeville, Minnesotta: Liturgical Press, 2003.

Genesis 1:1-25:18
John D. Currid
Darlington: Evangelical Press, 2003.

Genesis 1-11
Robert Davidson
Cambridge University Press, 1973.

Book of Genesis: A Commentary
Samuel Rolles Driver
London: Methuen, 1911.

In the Beginning: The True Message of the Genesis Origin Stories
Lawrence R. Farley
Ancient Faith Publishing, 2018

Genesis
Charles T. Fritsch
Richmond, Virginia: John Knox, 1959.

The International Critical Commentary on Genesis, Chronicles, and the Psalms
Kemper Fullerton
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1912.

The Book of Genesis
Calvin Goodspeed; D. M. Welton
Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1909.

The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History
Hermann Gunkel; William Herbert Carruth
New York: Schocken Books, 1970.

The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17
Victor P. Hamilton
Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1990.

Reading Genesis: Ten Methods
Edited by Ronald Hendel

The Women of Genesis
Sharon Jeansonne
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

The Story of Joseph (Genesis 37; 39-47): A Philological Commentary
Isaac Jerusalmi
Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion, 1965.
(Recently up-dated, but requires ability to read Hebrew.)

The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis
Leon R. Kass
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003.

A Commentary on Genesis: The Book of Beginnings
Martin Kessler; Karel Adriaan Deurloo
New York: Paulist Press, 2004.

Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary
Derek Kidner
Chicago: Inter-varsity Press, 1967.

Before Abraham Was: The Unity of Genesis 1-11
Kikawada, Isaac M. and A. Quinn. 
Nashville: Abingdon, 1985.

Genesis: An Expositional and Devotional Commentary
William Klock
Lulu, 2014

How to Read Genesis
Tremper Longman III
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2005.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 1
Andrew Louth. ed.
Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001.

Commentary on Genesis
Martin Luther
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1958.

Discovering Genesis and the Origins of the Biblical World
David Neiman

A commentary upon the first book of Moses, called Genesis
Simon Patrick
London: Printed for Ri. Chiswell, at the Rose and Crown in St. Paul's Church-Yard, 1698.

Creation and the Patriarchal Histories
Patrick Henry Reardon
Ben Lomond, California: Conciliar Press, 2008.

Chi Rho commentary on Genesis
J T E Renner
Adelaide, S. Australia: Lutheran Pub. House, 1984.

Understanding Genesis
Nahum M. Sarna
Penguin Random House, 1970.

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Vol. 2
Mark Sheridan, ed.
Downer's Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2002

Genesis (Volume I in the Anchor Bible series )
E.A. Speiser
Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Genesis
Pauline A. Viviano
Collegeville, Minneapolis: Liturgical Press, 1985.

Genesis
Gerhard Von Rad
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Genesis: A commentary
Bruce K Waltke; Cathi J Fredricks
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001.

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate
John H. Walton
Downer's Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Genesis 1-15
Gordon J Wenham
Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1987.

Genesis : A Practical Commentary
Claus Westermann; David Green
Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.B. Eerdmans, 1987.

Genesis 1-11: A commentary
Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1984.

Genesis 12-36: A commentary
Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1985.

Genesis 37-50: A commentary
by Claus Westermann
Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1986.

Genesis
by Thomas Whitelaw; F W Farrar; Henry Cotterill; et al
New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1913.

Genesis: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition
by Wilbur Glenn Williams
Indianapolis, Indiana: Wesleyan Pub. House, 2000.

The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary
Ronald F. Youngblood
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991.

Genesis: The Beginning of Desire
Avivah G. Zornberg
New York: Doubleday, 1996


Related reading: How to Read a Commentary; Reviews of commentaries by Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Herman Gunkel, Leon Kass and Patrick Reardon, A Little About Sources

Greek Linear Logic vs. Hebrew Step Logic

What follows is an excerpt from an excellent article written by Jeff A. Benner, Director of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center.  Here he touches on some of reasons western readers have a difficult time understanding the creation accounts in Genesis.

The Hebrew stressed the concreteness of God's work. They do not spiritualized the material as the Greeks tend to do. Benner cites Exodus 7:12 as an example of concrete thinking.

But Moses' hands grew weary, so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat on it, while Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side. So his hands were steady until the going down of the sun. (ESV, Exodus 17:12)

Benner writes, "In this passage we can see many concrete words including hands, stone, sat, side, steady and sun. In addition, the entire sentence creates a visual scene that we can easily picture in our mind.'

Jeff Benner

The Greek thinker uses a linear logic that flows in steps from a beginning to an end. Each step is linked closely to the next in a coherent and rational fashion. In contrast to this, the Hebrew thinker uses block logic, which groups things together according to their similarities. Because of these differences, Western readers of the Bible, who are reading the Bible from a linear perspective, read the creation account in Genesis as if it was written in chronological order, but this was not how the narrative was written; the different events of the creation account are recorded in blocks of related events.

The first three days of creation are related to separation.
Day 1 – Separating light from darkness
Day 2 – Separating the water from the sky
Day 3 – Separating the land from the water

The next three days of creation are related to the filling of the creation.
Day 4 – Filling the light with the sun and the dark with the moon
Day 5 – Filling the water fish and the sky with birds
Day 6 – Filling the land with animals and man

The record of events for the first six days of creation, are written in blocks of parallels, a form of Hebrew poetry, and can be written like this;

1 – Separating light from darkness

2 – Separating the water from the sky

3 – Separating the land from the water

4 – Filling the light with the sun and the dark with the moon

5 – Filling up the water with fish and the sky with birds

6 – Filling up the land with animals

Days 1 and 4 are paralleled with each other and are recording the same event as we can see from the following verses.

And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. (ESV, Genesis 1:4)

And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night … and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." (ESV, Genesis 1:14a, 18b)

Verse 4 occurs on the first day and is describing the action of God separating light and darkness, but in verse 14, which is day four, we have God again separating light and darkness. There are only two possible explanations for this. Either the separation of light and darkness on the first day disappeared and had to be separated again on the fourth day, or the first and fourth days are recording the same event. In addition, days 2 and 5 are recording the same event, as are days 3 and 6.


Conclusion

Throughout the world, past and present, there are two major forms of philosophy, Western and Eastern and these two forms of philosophy are very different from each other.

The Bible was written by Hebrews in a culture that was predominately Eastern in its philosophy, while we, the readers of the Bible, live in a culture that is predominately Western in its philosophy. Eastern philosophy is the form of philosophy of all ancient cultures (as well as all primitive cultures that still exist today). Western philosophy was developed in the Greek culture by its ancient philosophers about 3,000 years ago. When we read the Bible, which was written from an ancient Eastern Hebrew perspective, we will frequently misinterpret the text because we are reading it from a Western Greek perspective.

When it comes to reading the Bible in its proper perspective, the five major differences between Hebrew and Greek thought must be kept in mind; concrete vs. abstract thinking, passive vs. active descriptions, impersonal vs. personal relationships and linear vs. block logic.

It is hard for our Western minds to grasp these very different perspectives of thought, but if we do not accept the fact that the Bible was written from a perspective that is very different from our own, we will continue to misinterpret it.


Jeff & Denise Benner
Ancient Hebrew Research Center


Related reading: The Binary Worldview of the Bible

Contextual Incongruities in Genesis

Alice C. Linsley


Genesis is a complex and layered narrative. It contains data that pertains to the earliest populations and to the antecedents of the Messianic Faith among Abraham's Hebrew ancestors. Over these older layers are glosses and anachronisms that reflect at least two later sources: the Deuteronomist Historian, and Rabbinic literature. The Deuteronomist writes from the context of the Neo-Babylonian Period, c. 700-300 BC, about 1500 years after the time of Abraham. The Rabbinic insertions reflect an even later period. They date from the first century AD to c. 600 AD.

Understanding the material requires unraveling the interwoven elements and paying attention to the textual and contextual incongruities. A critical reading avoids imposing a presumed order or interpretation on the text. To flesh out the narrative we must notice the incongruities and discrepancies, and what Jacques Derrida calls the trace of the subordinated voices.

For example, at the end of the book, Jacob's clan settles in Egypt. The general thrust of the narrative is set up for the story of Moses and the Exodus. Yet the text makes it clear that Jacob's people maintained contact with relatives and friends in Edom. Judah had sexual relations with Tamar in the region of Timna (Gen. 38:12-30), an area controlled by the Edomites. Tamar sat at the entrance to a Horite shrine there.

The Horite Hebrew rulers of Edom are listed in Genesis 36. Analysis of their marriage and ascendancy pattern demonstrates that they are the descendants of the rulers listed in Genesis 4, 5, 10 and 11.

Abraham's territory was entirely in the region of Edom. It extended on a north-south axis between Hebron and Beersheba and on an east-west axis between Engedi and Gerar. This region was called Idumea by the Greeks which means "land of red people." We recall that Esau and David are described as having a red skin tone. It is likely that the name Adam is also a reference to a red skin tone. By considering the incongruity of settlement in Egypt and the presence of Jacob's son and kinsmen in Edom, we gain a fuller and more accurate picture of the events that shaped Israel's early history.

Many of the incongruities of Genesis are contextual; posing a contrast between the earlier cultural context of Abraham the Hebrew and the latter context of the Jewish Rabbis. An example is the phrase "sons of God" (Bene ha'elohim) in Genesis 6. This is interpreted by some as a reference to angelic beings. If that is the intent of the writer, this clearly is a rabbinic gloss on the text, and represents an idea that is not consistent with the worldview of Abraham's ancestors.

The Aramaic translation of Genesis 6:1-4 reflects and communicates the idea that the "sons" are men, and probably rulers, who for reasons of succession, had more than one wife (as did Lamech, Terah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elkanah, etc.) The idea of angels being envious and descending to have intercourse with human females is distinctively rabbinic. This is clearly set forth in Annette Yoshiko Reed's book Fallen Angels and the History of Judaism and Christianity: The Reception of Enochic Literature.

The Deuteronomist narrates Israel's history through Moses and disconnects him and his family from their Horite Hebrew context. The Deuteronomist stresses the rejection of images, exclusive devotion to the God called YHWH, and obedience to his prophet Moses (Deut. 18:18; cf. Mark 6:125; Matt. 16:13-20; John 1:21).

The Deuteronomist seeks centralized worship at the Jerusalem temple, and the reshaping of the Passover and Tabernacles into national observances. This perspective does not align with the historical, archaeological, linguistic, and anthropological data concerning Abraham. It ignores his R1b cattle-herding ancestors who lived 4500 years ago in central Africa. The result is a disconnection between the Deuteronomist's portrait of Abraham and the earlier portrait of Abraham as a Horite Habiru ruler in Edom whose ancestors are named in Genesis 4 and 5.

Some interpreters believe that the disparate narratives reflect a conflict between priestly families. However, Moses's family is descended from Abraham's family and their marriage and ascendancy customs are exactly the same. Analysis of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of Moses's family reveals the distinctive pattern of the Horite ruler-priest caste. This should not surprise us since Moses is the half-brother of the ruler-priest Korah, a descendant of the Horite Hebrew ruler, Seir of Edom. There is greater continuity in Genesis on the level of kinship patterns than is generally recognized.

Digging deeper

The Jewish people view Genesis 15 as the high water mark in the later narrative. Here we read that Abraham received divine protection and promises in a night vision. Abraham's complaint that he had no proper heir is not answered with the promise of Isaac, but instead Abraham is promised offspring as numerous as the stars. God seals this with a covenant on the mountain in which Abraham's sacrifice is consumed as a smoking pot of fire (or a torch?) passes between the severed animals Abraham has set out.

God now tells Abraham, through the agency of Moses, what will happen in the opening chapters of Exodus. Abraham's descendants will be foreigners in Egypt for 400 years, but God will judge Egypt and bring Abraham's offspring out of the land with great wealth. After four generations, Abraham's offspring will return to Canaan.

The Joktanite clans

In reality, many of Abraham's offspring never lived in Canaan. His firstborn son, Joktan, served as a high ranking official in the territory of his maternal grandfather in the region of Beersheba in Edom. The clans of Yisbak and Shuah, other sons of Keturah, are associated with the Euphrates valley. Zimran and Medan are clans in Arabia. Midian is associated with northwestern Arabia. Frank Moore Cross believes the origins of Israel's conception of God is to be found in the region of Midian. Cross argues that archaic biblical poetry locates Yahweh's movements in Edom/Seir/Teman/Midian and that these "are our most reliable evidence for locating Sinai/Horeb, the mountain of God."

As Abraham was a Hebrew ruler-priest, his proper heir was the firstborn son of his first wife and half-sister, Sarah. As Sarah was barren, the next in line was the firstborn son of a related concubine. In this case, that was Eliezar, son of Mesek. "Dam-Mesek" means the one born of Mesek or the blood of Mezek. This has been improperly rendered as Damascus.

Isaac assumed governance over Abraham's territory in Edom. At that time the territory extended on a north-south axis from Hebron to Beersheba. Digging deeper into the Bible we discover that the Edomite territory extended to Bethlehem of Judah.

Related reading: Bronze Age Origin of Semitic Languages; How the Deuteronomist Changes the Genesis Narrative; Discrepancies are Evidence of Authenticity; Edom and the Horites; The Genesis Record of Horite Rule; The Antiquity of the Edomite Rulers; Midianite Potters in Edom

Dr. John Walton on Genesis

"If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology. If we try to turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. It is not just a case of adding meaning (as more information has become available) it is a case of changing meaning. Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say." -- John H. Walton, Ph.D (From here.)

Dr. John Walton

In recent years, John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College, has been both lauded and criticized for his interpretation of Genesis 1–2. In his 2009 landmark book, The Lost World of Genesis One (InterVarsity Press), he argued that to rightly understand Genesis 1—an ancient document—we need to read it within the context of the ancient world. Read alongside other ancient texts, he says, Genesis 1 is not about how God made the world, but about God assigning functions to every aspect of it. In 2013, Walton contributed a chapter in Four Views on the Historical Adam (Zondervan). There he argued that Adam was a historical person, but also that Adam’s primary function in Scripture is to represent all of humanity. For Walton, Genesis 1–2 is not concerned about human material origins, but rather about our God-given function and purpose: to be in relationship with God and work alongside him, as his image bearers, in bringing continued order to our world.

Read the full Christianity Today interview here.


What do you think?

Is Genesis 1-2, not about human origins?

Is Genesis 1-2 about relationships, function and purpose?

Is Adam a historical person in Genesis 1-2?

Does Adam represent all humanity in Genesis 1-2?

What is the original cultural context of Genesis 1-2?

What are the more important aspects of Genesis in Dr. Walton's thinking?

What are the first two Messianic references in Genesis?

I would be interested in readers' responses to these questions.


Related reading: The Themes of Genesis 1-3; Is Genesis Really About Human Origins?; Adam and Eve as Meta-Historical Ancestors; Adam Was a Red Man; Peter Leithart on John Walton's Lost World of Genesis One; The Dangers of Concordism; Facebook Conversation on Creationism

Facebook Conversation on Creationism

Alice C. Linsley

In the following Facebook thread some friends asked excellent questions and I asked their permission to post this at JUST GENESIS. This is the sort of conversation that can help people sort through the issues.

The conversation arose in response to this article about the discovery of trillions of stone artifacts in Africa. The article was posted by a Christian geologist. If humans have been on the earth only 5000-6000 years, they could not have produced the volume of work found at the stone working sites in Africa. At 40 million artifacts per year, it would take a population of 100,000 individuals 100,000 years to produce just 4 trillion artifacts.

• Can there be a a conversation or a dialectic between the facts that make for one's faith and the narrative of "Genesis" that makes for the faith of "creationists" regarding the age of the earth and the origin of man. Can such a dialogue be possible?  - Sidney Davis

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Everything is possible, Sidney, but some conversations are less possible than others. Defining the term "creationist" is where we have to begin. There are different groups: young earth creationism, which is neither scientific nor Biblical; theistic creationism which is very popular with Evangelicals who accept evolutionary theories, some of which have no material support; old earth creationists who believe the Creator initiated creative or generative processes that resulted in humans, and old earth creationists who believe that humans represent a special creation, a sort of crown on the creation pyramid. Some of these are mutually exclusive positions and a dialectic between them is virtually impossible. I find it a waste of time to discuss Genesis with people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.
• 
  
• 

  Jarold Williams My brain is defective, and so my opinion is not an intellectual one. But I think it doesn't matter, nor will we ever know, how old or young the earth is. What does matter to me is that God created everything that exists.

  
  
• 

  Chris Ali I wonder if they considered in their estimate of 10,000 artifacts per person that people lived longer during that time? If one person made 100 artifacts per day in his life time he would actually end up making over 18 millions artifacts. So if they calculate 18 million artifacts per person to their 20 generations x 100,000 formula then the young earth proponents may be right.

  
  
• 

  Kelly Trafford Marshall What is your opinion, Alice?

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Jarold, the earth is billions of years old, and the universe is even older.

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Chris, there is no evidence that people lived longer in the times before Noah (c. 3000 BC). The numbers assigned to the rulers who lived before the deluge are symbolic. Lamech the Younger, the father of Noah, lived 777 years, for example. Lamech the Elder, his father-in-law, sought God's grace 7 times what his ancestor Kain received. As St. John Chrysostom recognized, the line of Cain received great mercy. Not only 7 fold for Cain, but 77 fold for Lamech the Elder (Gen. 4:24), and 777 in the case of Lamech the Younger (Gen. 5:31).

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Kelly, I am an old earth creationist who believes that humans are a special creation, which is why they appear suddenly as fully human about 4 million years ago. I believe that the unity of organic life is not explained by Darwin's theories, but by the reality that all things were made in and through the One who also sustains all things.

  
  
• 

  Kelly Trafford Marshall So with the family tree in scripture, how do you get to 4 million years?

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Adam and Eve in Genesis represent the founding parents of the "red" people from whom Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus come. However, later Biblical writers pose them as the first created humans. Adam comes from Ha-dam, meaning blood, red color. This is known to be an extremely ancient genetic line. It is associated with the R1b haplogroup which still has the largest concentration in Upper Nile and around Lake Chad. The Upper Nile and Lake Chad are were the Rulers named in Genesis 4 and 5 lived. Noah was a ruler int he region of Lake Chad, which is the only place on earth that claims to be his homeland - Bor-No (Land of Noah). See this map:
  

  
  

  

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley The oldest human fossils are dated to about 3.8 million years. This genetic lineage is believed to be about 20,000 years. I believe it is older, possibly 100,000 years. The Genesis narrative suggests that Abraham had a distinctive red skin tone that is associated with other rulers in this lineage: Esau and David. Analysis of the marriage and ascendancy pattern of the Edomites reveals that it is identical to that of Abraham's Nilotic ancestors. This is what would be expected if Abraham is a descendant of both Ham and Shem.
  
  The Edomites may have been kin to the red Nubians. The Shasu of Nubia also lived in Edom. The red skin tone is a more dominant trait in HG R1b. The majority of men in England, Scotland and Ireland are in this Haplogroup.
• 
  
• 

  Chris Ali Alice. What about the next verse after Genesis 5:41 that says "after Noah was 500 years old"? Is that symbolic as well?

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Yes, Chris. Scholars recognize that the numbers of years assigned to rulers in the ancient world was symbolic on many levels. The Sumerian king lists assign reigns of thousands of years, for example. Longevity claims for only eight Sumerian kings totaled 241,200 years. The reign of the Persian king Zahhak was said to be 1000 years. We shouldn't get hung up on the ages of the Biblical rulers. The fact that the Genesis king lists reflect a practice this old, means we are dealing with authentic material.

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley  Kelly, here is a fuller explanation.
  

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

  Just Genesis : Longevity in the Genesis King Lists

  JANDYONGENESIS.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY ALICE LINSLEY

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Kelly, Here is a fuller explanation about the millions of years between the first created humans and Kain.
  

  
  

  
  

  

  
  

  Just Genesis : Millions of Years Between Gen 4:1 and Gen. 4:17

  JANDYONGENESIS.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY ALICE LINSLEY

  
  
• 

  Kelly Trafford Marshall That's fascinating, Alice. If I had been taught these things in my college religion classes, I would have stuck with it!

  
  
• 

  Chris Ali Thanks Alice. I will be reading these later on. I have one more question. Proponents of young earth say that the the scientific methods used to date things is not accurate. For example, carbon dating, etc. In your opinion how accurate or reliable are these methods?

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Radio carbon dating is one method of dating, and it is used along with other methods, such as stratography, a systematic approach that involves bracketing. The ranges are based on all the data gathered. When something is dated between 12,000 - 8,000 years BP (before the present), we can be confident in saying that it dates to about 10,000 PB.  I am often asked if carbon 14 dating is reliable. People who distrust science point to this one method and claim that it is flawed. They seem unaware that there are many methods by which to date rocks and fossils, and that carbon dating techniques are continuously refined. Besides radiometric dating, scientists analyze the breakdown of amino acids. This amino acid racemization dating method has been around since the early 1970s. Dating is also measured by changes in an object's magnetic field.
• 
  
• 

  Chris Ali Why do some Christians think that the old earth theory supports the theory of evolution?

  
  
• 

  Alice Linsley Because they have been presented with a false choice between Biblical literalism (poorly done) or Darwinian evolution (poorly done). The problem is one of inadequate education, lack of information, and false interpretations. We have to get Genesis right. It is the foundation of the whole of the Bible. Young earth creationism has caused many people to reject the Bible. They do not see that it is a reliable source of information. See this: 

  
  
• 
  

  
  

  
  
  

  Just Genesis : Between Biblical Literalism and Biblical Illiteracy

  Darwin's observations of the complexity, diversity and...

  JANDYONGENESIS.BLOGSPOT.COM|BY ALICE LINSLEY
• 
  
• Dwight Huthwaite Do you feel that time could have been impacted by the fall in addition to man and creation?

Alice Linsley Time was created by God for constancy. Just as some stars are fixed for navigation. Just as the sun always rises in the east for orientation. Just as the constellations move in a clock like pattern so that we can predict cycles. There are some features of creation which are fixed and beyond man's reach; beyond the ability of man to have an impact on them. There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that time was affected by the Fall.

Related reading: Edo, Edom, Idumea; Longevity in the Genesis King Lists; Clergy Poorly Informed on Theories of Creation; YEC Dogma is NOT Biblical; Bishop Ussher Goofed; A Scientific Timeline of Genesis; The Genesis King Lists; The Age of the Earth