Evangelical Study Bibles Continued: How do they interpret Genesis Chapter One?

Evangelical Study Bibles Continued: How do they interpret Genesis Chapter One?

This is part two of a short series concerning how well-known evangelical study Bibles handle the account of creation as recorded in the historical narrative of Genesis chapter one.  Chances are you may not invest heavily in commentary sets but you may be willing to purchase a study Bible (either in paper or digital form).  It is for this very reason that we must understand what viewpoints appear in the notes.  

Our previous articles discussed the MacArthur Study Bible, the Reformation Heritage Study Bible, the Ryrie Study Bible and the Zondervan Study Bible (KJV Edition).  It would be only fair to state that the exact same notes for the KJV edition also appear in the the edition using the NASB and NIV.  So simply dismissing an English translation does not solve the problem (s) found within the study notes.

Our first stop for this article is the ESV Study Bible, General Editor Wayne Grudem.  As we shall see the notes in this study Bible clearly make room for the vast views of new evangelical scholarship within their churches and seminaries.  The study introductory and study notes don't even attempt to place a literal six-day interpretation as more favorable.  
Note on page 44, "Faithful interpreters have arguments for ...."  From here faithful interpreters can hold to the following positions "ordinary days" "a sequence of geological ages" "analogical days" or simply as a "literary framework."  So basically when it comes to the the creation account in Genesis, evangelicals can believe whatever they want.  This is patent new evangelicalism, "You call me a scholar and I'll call you a Christian."

The introductory notes continue on to make full liberty of interpretation for the many evangelicals that believe in evolution and the earth being millions of years old and the opened door for a local flood (another series forthcoming).

Concerning 1:1 they write, "This opening verse can be taken as a summary, introducing the whole passage; or it can be read as the first event, the origin of the heavens and  the earth (sometime before the first day), including the creation of matter, space, and time."  Later on they write, "The text indicates that God created everything in the universe, which thus affirms that he did in fact create in ex nihilo."

Discussion of how they describe the first six days is more fuzzy, which actually matches the all-embracing comments found within the introductory notes.  The comment, "By a simple reading of Genesis, these days must be described as days in the life of God, but how his days relate to human days is more difficult to determine."  This is a rather odd statement considering the first two humans were created on day six.  I think this is double talk to make room for broader evangelical scholars who don't take Genesis literally, don't believe in a literal Adam and Even, and the new trend of believing in death before the fall.

From here we move on to the The Reformation Study Bible, General Editor R. C. Sproul.
Unfortunately, Sproul's handling of the text fits well within the broader new evangelical landscape.  Again broad strokes will be made for the positions held by "scholars."  
The introductory notes for Genesis  don't start off very well, "The tension between Genesis and modern science about the origins of the universe and of living species is largely resolved when it is recognized that they are speaking from different perspectives."  In other words, modern evolutionary science tells us what we are to believe without ability to question to believes, motives, or assumptions.  Reading on in his introductory notes shows this conclusion to be correct.

Interestingly enough, Sproul first critiques one alternative view to holding to a literal six-day creation.  His notes on 1:2 state, "Some suggest that vv.1 and 2 refer to two separate creative acts separated by a span of time...this view is very doubtful."  He moves on from here in his notes on 1:5 to include four other positions held by "Reformed scholars."  He mentions a literal 24-hour day young earth position, a day-age theory, literal days separated by long lengths of time, and a literary framework view.  He spends the most time defending the "framework hypothesis" view and compares it to several other positions as obviously it being superior to the other positions.

Due to the lengthy overviews and warnings found in the ESV Study Bible and the Reformation Study Bible, we shall hold off on our comments for the following study Bibles.  It doesn't hurt to know what your Study Bible actually teaches in the notes before spending money on these publishing house products.  Next we will tackle the following:

The Apologetics Study Bible, Numerous Authors

The Archaeological Study Bible, General Editor Walter Kaiser Jr.

The NET Bible, Biblical Studies Press.

Hope this helps some.  Comments of course encouraged.