1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.
3God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness. 5God called the light “day”, and the darkness he called “night”. There was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8God called the expanse “sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.
9God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear;” and it was so. 10God called the dry land “earth”, and the gathering together of the waters he called “seas”. God saw that it was good. 11God said, “Let the earth yield grass, herbs yielding seeds, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with their seeds in it, on the earth;” and it was so. 12The earth yielded grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with their seeds in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs to mark seasons, days, and years; 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth;” and it was so. 16God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. 17God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, 18and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20God said, “Let the waters abound with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” 21God created the large sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good. 22God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
24God said, “Let the earth produce living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;” and it was so. 25God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.
26God said, “Let’s make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. 30To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.
31God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.
In recent years, several evangelical scholars have departed from the view that the Genesis narratives (chs 1-9) are historical narratives, but are, rather, mythical accounts that teach theological lessons (a departure from the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy [see Article XII below] and the Doctrinal Statement of the Evangelical Theological Society on Inerrancy, based on the Chiciago Statement), with the creation account of the universe similar to Ancient Near Eastern myths about creation. In so doing, they discount several aspects of the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2, and reject the historical creation of Adam and Eve. Rather, they embrace theistic evolution (similar to liberal scholars of the late 19th and early 20th century) and deny the Genesis 2 record of God physically creating Adam and Eve, as well as the fall of these first humans. See the admonition of the Church Father, Irenaeus, on the pernicious teaching of false teachers in the second century A.D.
Other Hebrew scholars argue that Genesis is presented in the creation accounts in Genesis are similar to historical accounts in the book of Genesis, similar to the genealogies, and also what we know about modern science (see https://hvsb.app/WEB/GEN/1/doc/1ZiJzA92xdyBPSPIF6zW) found in the hvsb.app. As well, several scholars have argued that the Genesis creation account is a polemic against ANE creation myths rather than evolutionary ideas based on a philosophical foundation. Moreover, literary scholars like C.S. Lewis say that myth always comes from history and not history from myth.
Following is a comparative chart that organizes the views of prominent critical scholars (embracing the philosophical evolutionary view) who see Genesis 1–2 as myth (in the ANE genre or framework), versus those conservative scholars who argue that Genesis 1–2 is a historical narrative (possibly polemical against ANE myth, but not myth itself). The chart includes representative scholars, their positions, key arguments, and relevant responses from those affirming the historical reliability of Genesis 1–2.
Article XII of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy: Article XII:
"We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood."
Comparative Chart: Is Genesis 1–2 Myth or History?
| Viewpoint | Representative Scholars | Key Arguments | Responses by Historical View Scholars |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genesis 1–2 as Myth (ANE Parallels) | Tremper Longman III | Genesis uses symbolic, theological language; not meant as literal history. Reflects ANE worldview to teach truth through "mythic" structure. | Gerhard Hasel: Genre of Genesis 1 is historical narrative, not poetic/mythic (based on Hebrew grammar and syntax). |
| John Walton | Genesis is “functional ontology,” not material creation. God gives order/roles to existing chaos (like in ANE temple texts). Not about physical origins. | Currid: While there are surface similarities with ANE myths, Genesis is distinct in its monotheism, order, and absence of divine conflict. | |
| Bruce Waltke | Genesis adapts ANE mythical language to communicate theological truths. Literal interpretation misses intended meaning. | Hasel: Repeated use of “And God said... and it was so…” demonstrates a structured, historical framework. | |
| William Lane Craig | Genesis is mytho-history: not pure myth, but also not straightforward history. Combines symbolic and historical elements. | C. John Collins: Mythical elements may exist, but the structure is narrative and communicates real events (see his Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?). | |
| Peter Enns | The Bible reflects the ancient mindset; evolution and ANE parallels show that Genesis is accommodation, not literal history. | John Sailhamer: Genesis begins historical narrative in 1:1; Genesis 1–11 uses genealogical structure identical to Genesis 12–50. | |
| Genesis 1–2 as Historical Narrative (with Polemical Function) | Gerhard Hasel | Strong evidence of narrative structure (use of waw-consecutive verbs); not myth. Genesis contrasts sharply with polytheistic myths. | Affirmed by many conservative evangelicals; shows consistency between Genesis 1–11 and rest of Genesis. |
| John D. Currid | Genesis is a polemic against ANE myths (esp. Egyptian and Mesopotamian), not a reworking of myth. It teaches monotheism, not syncretism. | See Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament (Crossway). | |
| Kenneth Kitchen | Genesis 1–11 reflects early historical thinking; lacks mythic markers like divine combat or sexual deity interplay found in ANE texts. | Emphasizes Genesis’ historical intent and structure. | |
| C. John Collins | Genesis uses exalted prose, but still intends to communicate real history. It invites careful reading without dismissing truth claims. | See Genesis 1–4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary. | |
| Allen P. Ross | The structure, themes, and grammar of Genesis support it as historical narrative meant to be taken seriously as origins account. | Creation is depicted as deliberate, ordered, and purpose-driven—unlike chaotic ANE myths. | |
| C.S. Lewis (Literary Scholar) | “Myth is a real but unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination... but Christianity is myth become fact.” | Lewis affirms that biblical stories, while grand and symbolic, are rooted in real events (e.g., Incarnation, Creation). Lewis argues that myth always comes from history, and never history from myth. |
Additional Observations