What do you think of the author’s approach to reconciling evolution and direct creation?

[Melisa Jane]

BOOK WEBSITE: https://ygodallowsevil.com


Anyone wanting to solve the problem of evil in a manner that is consistent with both the Bible and natural science must reconcile the narrative of direct creation in Genesis with the scientific theory of evolution. The book reconciles evolution and direct creation by arguing that time itself is a product of the fall of man, asserting that a single act that is carried out in a timeless state can simultaneously affect every point within linear time (summary available here: https://ygodallowsevil.com/evolution-an ... t-creation). What do you think of the author’s approach to reconciling evolution and direct creation in this manner?

[Sonia Longras]

In The Advent of Time, Indignus Servus presents a unique approach to reconciling the concepts of evolution and direct creation. The method involves a nuanced perspective that integrates both evolutionary theory and divine purpose. Rather than seeing evolution and creation as opposing forces, the author suggests they can coexist harmoniously.
This approach respects the scientific evidence for evolution while also embracing the idea of a purposeful creation, grounded in love and divine action. It provides a solution to the philosophical tension between randomness in evolution and the intentional act of creation. Servus’ analysis allows for a broader understanding of both science and spirituality, opening a path to synthesize faith and reason. For readers, this offers a compelling way to view the universe as both scientifically explainable and spiritually meaningful.

[Auth Allow]

The book reconciles direct creation with evolution by borrowing an idea from Pope Benedict XVI, who described the nature of man’s “timeless” existence in the final, eternal state as follows: “non-time, …since it is outside of time, is equally close to every time.”

The Advent of Time takes this concept and applies it to the pre-fallen state of mankind, who lived in state of “timelessness” prior to committing original sin. The book asserts that any action that is carried out in a state of timelessness can simultaneously affect EVERY point within linear time. The book then argues that ‘self-centeredness’ and ‘indifference to others’ constitute the essence of man’s original sin, and that this self-centeredness and blind indifference were imprinted onto the various forms of life that God had made subject to man’s authority, at EVERY point across the entirety of time-bound existence:

“Since man is the sovereign ruler of all creatures within his domain, every element of these creatures’ existence mirrors the will of man when he existed as a timeless being, at all points in linear time. When the will of man in a timeless state of existence became individualistic in its focus, and indifferent in its concern about other beings, every aspect of man’s domain emulated this change, at all points across the full continuum of existence. Evolution, then, is evidence of a foundational reordering of man’s realm of existence, resulting from the first humans’ decision-making when they existed in a supratemporal state of being.”

In other words, evolution is propelled by the blind indifference and self-furthering actions of all forms of life. This blind indifference and self-centeredness are a reflection and consequence of the self-absorbed, uncaring decision that the first humans made when they decided to prioritize their acquisition of a particular form of knowledge (knowledge of good and evil) over the continuance of their loving relationship with God. This understanding of the Fall suggests that the impact and scope of man's original sin was vastly more far-reaching than many people have understood it to be. The book claims that the effect of the Fall was in fact so great that the entire material universe changed from a “timeless” creation to a time-based one (hence the title of the book).

When time itself is understood as a product of the Fall, and when the consequences of the Fall are understood to include the imprinting of the first humans’ self-centeredness and indifference onto every living creature within their domain—at ALL points across the full continuum of time-bound existence—there is no longer any conflict between direct creation and evolution.

[Jennifer Bells]

I believe the author approach because it has backing from the bible. Apart from that, it is realistic to think off.

[Adrian Bouknight]

While I enjoyed this book, I don't think the author recognizes that death was unfolding in Genesis before the fall.

For example, the book of Genesis, even in Eden or in Chapter 1 before the fall, it never says that animals did not experience suffering or death.

With that said, the entire book is resting upon something that isn't actually observed in the Bible.

[Santosh Behera]

This approach addresses the philosophical tension between randomness in evolution and intentional creation, offering a broader understanding of science and spirituality. 

[Alichi]

I believe that evolution opposes everything that the Bible has to offer. There is no correlation.

[Adrian Bouknight]

While I enjoyed this book, I don't think the author recognizes that death was unfolding in Genesis before the fall.

For example, in the book of Genesis, even in Eden or in Chapter 1 before the fall, the text never says that animals did not experience suffering or death.

With that said, the entire book is resting upon something that isn't actually observed in the Bible.

To clarify, the author seems to follow a line of thinking that Genesis involves an Edenic perfection before the fall. Then following the fall, we have sin, suffering, and death, which permeates space and time.

However, if Genesis never actually mentioned that animals were immortal before the fall, where would that leave us?

And so the author's efforts for reconciliation between evolution and the Bible really aren't necessary, because the Bible never suggests anything in opposition to the natural sciences to begin with. The book seeks to resolve an issue that doesn't actually exist in the text.

And some might say, "Well doesn't the Bible say that Adam was made of dust? Doesn't that contradict evolution?"

In short, in the old testament, all people are described as being made of dust. Abraham, Job, the Psalmist, and King Solomon.
Consider Psalm 103:14 for example:
"For he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust".

Or another passage from Genesis, spoken by Abraham:
Genesis 18:27
Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

The underlying difficulty with "The Advent of Time" is that the author approaches the text with the perception that the Bible aligns with science. It's the classic "The Bible is not a science textbook" issue that Galileo ran into with the catholic church when he was put on house arrest after proposing heliocentrism.

This book will make more sense once the author can get around this. However, the core premises of the book are undermined by this non-concordist hermeneutic. The error in the author's proposal boils down to a hermeneutical fallacy known as "scientific concordism".

Reconciliation between science and the Bible cannot be done without understanding these concepts.

[Auth Allow]

While I enjoyed this book, I don't think the author recognizes that death was unfolding in Genesis before the fall.

For example, in the book of Genesis, even in Eden or in Chapter 1 before the fall, the text never says that animals did not experience suffering or death.

With that said, the entire book is resting upon something that isn't actually observed in the Bible.

To clarify, the author seems to follow a line of thinking that Genesis involves an Edenic perfection before the fall. Then following the fall, we have sin, suffering, and death, which permeates space and time.

However, if Genesis never actually mentioned that animals were immortal before the fall, where would that leave us?

And so the author's efforts for reconciliation between evolution and the Bible really aren't necessary, because the Bible never suggests anything in opposition to the natural sciences to begin with. The book seeks to resolve an issue that doesn't actually exist in the text.

And some might say, "Well doesn't the Bible say that Adam was made of dust? Doesn't that contradict evolution?"

In short, in the old testament, all people are described as being made of dust. Abraham, Job, the Psalmist, and King Solomon.
Consider Psalm 103:14 for example:
"For he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust".

Or another passage from Genesis, spoken by Abraham:
Genesis 18:27
Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

The underlying difficulty with "The Advent of Time" is that the author approaches the text with the perception that the Bible aligns with science. It's the classic "The Bible is not a science textbook" issue that Galileo ran into with the catholic church when he was put on house arrest after proposing heliocentrism.

This book will make more sense once the author can get around this. However, the core premises of the book are undermined by this non-concordist hermeneutic. The error in the author's proposal boils down to a hermeneutical fallacy known as "scientific concordism".

Reconciliation between science and the Bible cannot be done without understanding these concepts.

“If Genesis never actually mentioned that animals were immortal before the fall, where would that leave us?”

Here’s where it would leave us: it would mean that God created a world with death in the animal kingdom. But Genesis 1:31 states that God declared that his Creation was “very good” upon completion. Does mortality throughout the animal kingdom (which entails mass suffering and death) constitute a “very good” Creation? Clearly not. This means that death must not have been part of the original creation.

So how did suffering and death arrive into the animal kingdom? The book answers this question by referencing Genesis 1:28, which states that God gave Adam and Eve “dominion over” the entire animal kingdom. It then asserts that the original Creation was not time-based; instead, it was "timeless" (this assertion is based on Wisdom 2:23, Isaiah 57:15, and other biblical passages, which together indicate that pre-fallen man lived in a state of timeless existence in the direct presence of God). Next, the book argues that the first humans' sinful decision in a state of "timelessness" literally caused time itself to come into being. Because Adam and Eve exercised godlike "dominion" over all creatures in the timeless pre-fallen Creation, when Adam and Eve committed original sin, the essence of their sin was imprinted on everything within their domain, at ALL points across Creation. If the essence of their sin was self-centeredness combined with indifference toward others, then every creature transformed from a state of selflessness into a state of innate self-centeredness and indifference toward other creatures. This self-centeredness and blind indifference among ALL living creatures at ALL points in linear time is what underlies the evolutionary process. In other words, Genesis 1–3 and evolution are in concord with one another as a matter of logic.

This leads to the “scientific concordism” issue that you raised. Scientific concordism is the attempt to reconcile specific biblical passages with scientific theories. Your post seems to suggest that the very attempt to do this constitutes a logical fallacy, which it most certainly does not. As explained above, Genesis 1–3 can indeed be logically reconciled with the theory of evolution if time itself is a product of original sin. (For those who haven't read the book, the argument reconciling evolution with direct creation appears in the chapter titled, "In The Beginning.")

[Auth Allow]

While I enjoyed this book, I don't think the author recognizes that death was unfolding in Genesis before the fall.

For example, the book of Genesis, even in Eden or in Chapter 1 before the fall, it never says that animals did not experience suffering or death.

With that said, the entire book is resting upon something that isn't actually observed in the Bible.

Death was not unfolding before the fall. Wisdom 1:13 states directly that God did not create death: "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living." (RSV) This, of course, only makes sense. After all, how could God be considered all-loving if he is the maker of suffering and death? Genesis is VERY clear that death entered the natural world as a result of the first humans' sin. Genesis doesn't include the words, "animals did not die before the fall of man" because this conclusion is obvious from Genesis 1:31, which reads: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." (RSV) Obviously, a world filled with the death of animals isn't "very good." This isn't just my interpretation of Genesis; it's the position held by the vast majority of Catholics, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But don't take my word for it; research it for yourself.

[Adrian Bouknight]

While I enjoyed this book, I don't think the author recognizes that death was unfolding in Genesis before the fall.

For example, the book of Genesis, even in Eden or in Chapter 1 before the fall, it never says that animals did not experience suffering or death.

With that said, the entire book is resting upon something that isn't actually observed in the Bible.

Death was not unfolding before the fall. Wisdom 1:13 states directly that God did not create death: "God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living." (RSV) This, of course, only makes sense. After all, how could God be considered all-loving if he is the maker of suffering and death? Genesis is VERY clear that death entered the natural world as a result of the first humans' sin. Genesis doesn't include the words, "animals did not die before the fall of man" because this conclusion is obvious from Genesis 1:31, which reads: "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good." (RSV) Obviously, a world filled with the death of animals isn't "very good." This isn't just my interpretation of Genesis; it's the position held by the vast majority of Catholics, Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. But don't take my word for it; research it for yourself.

In fact, most Protestant Old Testmant scholars do not actually hold the position that you have just shared (though I would agree that your average protestant at church probably would agree with you). I cannot speak to catholic scholars. I would recommend a book titled "Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation" or Genesis commentaries and writings by Old Testament Scholars such as Dr. Tremper Longman III, Dr. John Walton, Dr. Bll T. Arnold, Dr. Peter Enns, Dr. Richard Averbeck, Dr. John Collins, Dr. Micheal S. Heiser, among others.

What you'll find in protestant OT scholarship today (at least among Mainline Protestant scholars), is a consensus view that the Old Testament, is not "scientifically condordant" which is to say that, the text was written in a pre-scientific time, in which the authors didn't know about things like evolution, or rocketships, or gravity, or heliocentrism, or any other modern scientific concept, and thus never spoke of them. Likewise, in ancient near east texts of the time of Genesis, the protaganists of these narratives, they were seeking immortality, to stave off death. But death was still very much a part of the world. The epic of Gilgamesh is a good example of this in which the main protagonist also seeks a fruit of immortality that is stolen by a crafty snake.

And this is plainly evident in Genesis when Adam and Eve are sentenced to death. What happens? They are barred from eating of the tree of life. Their antidote, protecting them from death, was taken away from them. It is not that they were inherently immortal. They were only kept alive by the antidote, the tree of life. And this did not apply to the broader animal kingdom outside of Eden.

Consider the question:
If all life in Genesis was immortal, what was the purpose of the tree of Life?

Regarding Wisdom:

The Wisdom of Solomon was written several centuries after Genesis, and its contextual background shouldn't be confused with that of the ancient Near East. Wisdom has a Hellenistic contextual background, that is alien to that of the ancient Israelites (the original authors and audience of the Hebrew Old Testament.

In fact, the Wisdom of Solomon wasn't even originally written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek and contains concepts such as "Hades" which are not directly parallel to the Old Testament Sheol. Hades is typically a place of punishment of fallen angels and evil beings. Whereas in the Old Testament, everyone goes to Sheol, good and bad (hence why Jews oftentimes do not believe in the concept of hell).

Genesis, originating out of older ANE traditions dating back several centuries before the authorship of Wisdom, does not explicitly treat death as an inherently evil force, it is not a good force, but it is also not evil. It is more neutral (think about leviathan in psalm 104 for example) and it lacks the Hellenistic focus on eternal life of all animals as an ideal. Rather, Genesis reflects a world where order is established out of disorder (think about how earth comes out of the waters on day 2) in partnership with human agency, and where “very good” does not necessarily mean "immortal". "Good" also does not imply immortality in the animal kingdom. And considering death in contrast to life, similar to darkness in contrast to light, death is not created (like darkness). But it exists nonetheless. Just as darkness is not created, and yet, it exists in the very beginning of Genesis upon the surface of the deep (the deep was also not created in Genesis, it was simply there, see the NRSV).

In the ancient near east, and in ancient near east cosmology, darkness, and the deep, are not created. They are simply there. And death is a similar case. It is not a creation, but it is related to the disordered realm that God creates the heavens and earth out of.

In order to understand Genesis, it must be read in its original context. Not through the lens of later authors who lived many centuries later and spoke of God in different ways using different languages with different philosophical contextual backgrounds.

This is the same reason "the satan" in the Book of Job is often confused with "Satan" in the New Testament. But in fact, these are not actually the same person. This can be verified in instances in which "the satan" refers to the angel of the lord, for example.

Many Christians struggle with thinking about the text from its original contextual background. If you would like scholarly references on this subject, I'd be happy to share a list in addition to the above mentioned Old Testament scholars.

Quite simply put, there is a reason that Genesis never actually says anything about animals beginning to die after the fall. It's a misconception that dates back to the early church, but was imposed on the original Hebrew text sometime either during or after the 2nd temple period.

[Adrian Bouknight]

And I'll make one more note in addition to the above. You can actually find writings by early church figures on death of animals before the fall.

Saint Thomas Aquinas:
“the nature of animals was not changed by man’s sin.”

John Calvin:
"Truly the first man would have passed to a better life, had he remained upright; but there would have been no separation of the soul from the body, no corruption, no kind of destruction, and, in short, no violent change.”

Saint Basil the Great:
“So nature, being put in motion by the one command, passes equally through birth and death in a creature, while it keeps up the succession of kinds through resemblance, to the end. Because it is so that a horse succeed to a horse, a lion to a lion, an eagle to an eagle. And while every one of the living beings is preserved by these uninterrupted successions, she directs them to the end of it all.”

Even Saint Augustine acknowledged animal death, at least as a possibility beyond the garden:
"The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another… To wish that this were otherwise would not be reasonable. For all creatures, as long as they exist, have their own measure, number, and order. Rightly considered, they are all praiseworthy, and all the changes that occur in them, even when one passes into another, are governed by a hidden plan that rules the beauty of the world and regulates each according to its kind."

Predation is also observed in the Bible and is acknowledged as something that God ordains and controls. See Psalm 104:21 for example, in which God provides the lions with their prey. This is a creation psalm that directly relates to Genesis and the Glory of God's creation, by the way. Yet here, predation is viewed as a glorification of God's authority.

Psalm 104:21 - The young lions roar for their prey, seeking their food from God.

I could speak much more on the topic. But this isn't a religion debate forum. But suffice to say, regarding the book "The Advent of Time", the author, Indignus Servus, doesn't seem to acknowledge this potential. The entire book stands on a position in which there is no death at all, even in the animal kingdom, before the fall. But in actuality, this position is difficult to substantiate and would be disputed not only by many among scholarly OT consensus of mainline protestants today, but it would be disputed even by some well-known earlier catholic church figures.

I still enjoyed this BOTM. It is a good read, and well worth checking out. I'd certainly recommend checking it out if you have not yet read it. However, no one should miss this detail when examining the book. Read "The Advent of Time" closely, and keep an eye out for passages that actually suggest that there wasn't death before the fall. You won't actually find any.

And I've added more text to my prior post for reference. A key factor in the topic also involves familiarity with things like ancient near east cosmology and the existence of darkness and the deep, despite God not actually creating these things. They simply eternally exist in an ancient near eastern context, in the absence of God's creative acts (in Wisdom, God didn't create death, but it's still there nonetheless).

[Adrian Bouknight]

To further explain the concept of death, darkness, and the deep, outside of God's creative acts, here is a reference to the NRSVue:

Genesis 1:1-3 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [3] Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

In "The Advent of Time" the RSV is often cited. I tend to use the NRSV or the New RSV, or sometimes even the NRSVue (updated edition of the NRSV).

The NRSV translates the first 3 verses of Genesis with the most clarity imo, for this particular topic.

What we see is that, in this passage, the creation described is actually "ex materia". Meaning that, similar to an artist with a paint brush, approaching disordered paint, God is looking upon an uncreated chaos. And "When God created", the earth was chaos.

And then, like an artist, taking their paint brush and beginning to paint, God creates with the spoken word, and begins by saying "let there be light". Light is the first thing created, upon the prior existent chaotic formless Earth.

And this is how creation was described among ancient near east cultures such as Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Akkadians, etc.

Then earth is created on day 2 with the removal of the waters that covered it. And the heavens are created on day 3. Then days 4-6, God fills up those spaces with their multitude. The heavens filled with stars (days 1+4). The raqia filled with fish and birds (days 2+5). The earth filled with land animals and people (days 3+6).

Genesis 2:1 NRSVUE
[1] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished and all their multitude.

God addresses tohu on days 1-3 and bohu on days 4-6.

Once creation is completed in 6 days, God then rests upon His throne in the 7th day to rule the cosmos.

Isaiah 66:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] Thus says the Lord: Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; so what kind of house could you build for me, what sort of place for me to rest? [2] All these things my hand has made, so all these things are mine, says the Lord.

His throne is in heaven, the resting place where God rules as king.

Psalms 132:14 NIV
[14] “This is my resting place for ever and ever; here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it.

And this is also a common theme among ancient near east creation texts. In the Canaanite narrative, the Baal cycle, Baal creates his temple in 7 days and then takes up the throne.

He adorns Her with the covering of Her flesh.
She tears Her clothing.
On the second day
He adorns Her in the two rivers.
She sets a pot on the fire
A vessel on top of the coals.
Behold a day and a second,
The fire eats into the house,
The flame into the palace.
A fifth, a sixth day,
The fire eats into the house,
The flame in the midst of the palace.
Behold, on the seventh day,
The fire departs from the house,
The flame from the palace.
Silver turns from blocks,
Gold is turned from bricks.
Baal cycle

Another example, a Babylonian temple narrative, notice (all the world was sea):
No holy house, no house of the gods, had been built in a pure place;
No reed had come forth, no tree had been created;
No brick had been laid, no brickmold had been created;
No house bad been built; no city had been created;
No city had been built, no settlement had been founded;
Nippur had not been built, Ekur had not been created;
The depths had not been built, Eridu had not been created;
No holy house, no house of the gods, no dwelling for them had been created.
All the world was sea,
The spring in the midst of the sea was only a channel,
Then was Eridu built, Esagila (temple) was created.

The point of all the above is that, there is actually a lot of evidence that Genesis has a contextual background grounded in the ancient near east.

And in that contextual background, "the deep", "darkness" and things like chaos, which by their nature are dangerous and destructive, had always existed. Not created, but rather what creation was made out of. Like an artistic painting made out of a mess of disordered paint.

And I'd recommend content by OT Dr. John Walton for more details.

I share this for other readers and perhaps the author. Rather than suggesting ideas about sin traveling space time and proposing ideas involving time travel and immortal animals before the fall, or T rex eating vegetables and things of this nature (what else would T rex eat if there was no death?); we might consider a simple alternative that death always existed.

This alternative approach is much more simplistic and straightforward in terms of compatibility with the theory of evolution. And the deeper one studies this approach, the more evidence they'll find for it. (Ok, I'm finished with my speech but can continue if anyone would like further engagement).

[Auth Allow]

...the deeper one studies this approach, the more evidence they'll find for it.

I appreciate your detailed response surveying some of the scholarship on this issue. It does not surprise me that some religious scholars claim that animals suffered and died prior to the fall of man. I personally think the opinions of some of these individuals flows from the skepticism at many contemporary divinity schools about the veracity of various aspects of Genesis 1–3. Without naming specific educational institutions, I have noticed how the teaching staff at some US divinity programs have promoted ideas that only a generation ago would have been regarded as heretical by nearly the entirety of mainline Protestants (and still are regarded as heretical by most Protestant parishioners, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church). As such, I’m cautious before accepting every idea that contemporary religious professors promote, particularly those who advocate doctrines implying that God is evil.

It’s essential to carefully consider the theological implications of asserting that God is the creator of death in the animal kingdom. I believe The Advent of Time has it right when it maintains that God is not the creator of suffering and death in the animal kingdom. If God instituted a system of creation in the animal kingdom based on predation, ruthless competition, and death, what does this say about God’s character? To be direct, it says that God is depraved.

This is why I think The Advent of Time is an important book. It offers a solution to the evolution/direct creation debate that actually reconciles evolution with Genesis. Throughout my adult life, I've heard people insist that this can’t be done. Even on this discussion forum, there is a person who has written that evolution can’t be reconciled with direct creation (see post from Alichi above). Clearly, this person didn’t bother to read the book, because the book provides an argument that actually fully reconciles evolution and direct creation. I have yet to encounter any other book that has even come close to doing this. This is a huge theological development in my opinion.

[Adrian Bouknight]

...the deeper one studies this approach, the more evidence they'll find for it.

I appreciate your detailed response surveying some of the scholarship on this issue. It does not surprise me that some religious scholars claim that animals suffered and died prior to the fall of man. I personally think the opinions of some of these individuals flows from the skepticism at many contemporary divinity schools about the veracity of various aspects of Genesis 1–3. Without naming specific educational institutions, I have noticed how the teaching staff at some US divinity programs have promoted ideas that only a generation ago would have been regarded as heretical by nearly the entirety of mainline Protestants (and still are regarded as heretical by most Protestant parishioners, the Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church). As such, I’m cautious before accepting every idea that contemporary religious professors promote, particularly those who advocate doctrines implying that God is evil.

It’s essential to carefully consider the theological implications of asserting that God is the creator of death in the animal kingdom. I believe The Advent of Time has it right when it maintains that God is not the creator of suffering and death in the animal kingdom. If God instituted a system of creation in the animal kingdom based on predation, ruthless competition, and death, what does this say about God’s character? To be direct, it says that God is depraved.

This is why I think The Advent of Time is an important book. It offers a solution to the evolution/direct creation debate that actually reconciles evolution with Genesis. Throughout my adult life, I've heard people insist that this can’t be done. Even on this discussion forum, there is a person who has written that evolution can’t be reconciled with direct creation (see post from Alichi above). Clearly, this person didn’t bother to read the book, because the book provides an argument that actually fully reconciles evolution and direct creation. I have yet to encounter any other book that has even come close to doing this. This is a huge theological development in my opinion.

Thanks for your feedback!

I agree that the ideas I am referring to are relatively "new" ideas. Even things like old earth creationism were generally not held in antiquity. Before the advent of modern geology. And certainly, in a similar fashion, since the discovery of the theory of evolution, in similar fashion to heliocentrism under Galileo, is causing quite a shuffle in how the church examines these long held ideas. Heliocentrism also was not held among the early church. Though that's not to say that these things are not true. I support all of the above. I am certainly in favor of your efforts to synchronize science and the Bible in your thoughts noted above.

And then simultaneously we have things like the dead sea scrolls and discoveries of extra biblical literature like 1 Enoch and the book of the giants, and other ancient near east texts, like enuma elish or eridu Genesis that are really shaking up the scene.

I appreciate your caution on the topic.

I'll share one more passage that I think is really important in this discussion that I think may shed light on it.

Consider the following creation text:
Psalms 74:14-17 NRSVUE
[14] You crushed the heads of Leviathan; you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness. [15] You cut openings for springs and torrents; you dried up ever-flowing streams. [16] Yours is the day, yours also the night; you established the luminaries and the sun. [17] You have fixed all the bounds of the earth; you made summer and winter.

In ancient near Eastern literature, such as text of Mesopotamia and Babylon, Creator deities are depicted as defeating a chaotic serpent that serves as a personification of destruction and chaos. (Kind of like God defeating Satan before mankind is even created, similar to Satan fall theodicies but not quite the same).

Lotan, or litanu, the twisting and fleeing serpent (see Isaiah 27:1, it's defeated by Baal in the Baal cycle (in the Bible it is Yahwey), or consider Tiamat, defeated by Marduk in enuma elish. Indeed, lotan is called "the twisting and fleeing serpent" in extra biblical Canaanite texts as well, and the same battle unfolds as is described in Psalm 74 or Isaiah 27:1.

By his power he stilled the Sea; by his understanding he struck down Rahab. By his wind the heavens were made fair; his hand pierced the fleeing serpent.
Job 26:12‭-‬13 NRSV

When you smote litanu the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisting serpent, the dominant one who has 7 heads.
KTU 1.5 1-2 (Ugaritic ancient near east text)

surely I lifted up the dragon of the two flames. I destroyed the twisting serpent, the tyrant with the seven heads. KTU 1.3.:III:28-46

On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.
Isaiah 27:1 NRSV

In these texts, these forces. Chaos. Danger. Disorder.

These forces existed at the dawn of time, in ancient Israelite tradition, though not explicit in Genesis, before the fall. And when God created the heavens and the earth, God defeated these forces. These watery forces. Genesis is often viewed as polemic against these traditions in that there was no explicit battle in Genesis chapter 1.

Proverbs 8:22-23, 27-29 NRSVUE
[22] “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago. [23] Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
[27] When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, [28] when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, [29] when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth,

When he assigned the sea its limit. It's saying that, when God created. The deep was already there. And God used the raqia to create a barrier for it.

And within this barrier, and within Eden, people had safety. But the chaotic seas were always there. Beyond Eden.

Another creation text where God defeats chaos:
Psalms 89:8-11 NRSVUE
[8] O Lord God of hosts, who is as mighty as you, O Lord? Your faithfulness surrounds you. [9] You rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them. [10] You crushed Rahab (leviathan) like a carcass; you scattered your enemies with your mighty arm. [11] The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it—you founded them.

Rahab was also used in reference to pharaoh and Egypt of the Exodus. The psalmist drew parallel to the serpent and pharaoh and God's defeat of each with use of barriers holding back waters of the red sea and of the raqia restraining the waters above of Genesis, then further, God releases the waters on pharaoh in the red sea, and God releases waters during Noah's flood, to cleanse the earth of His enemies. And in both narratives, God delivers His people (Moses and Noah) through the chaotic waters, and in demonstration of His faithfulness.

I think that, this is where you know some of these big topics are boiling down to. Where mainline protestant scholars are observing closely, these texts and are concluding that perhaps there is more going on here than maybe was formerly observed in the early church (although as noted, big named prominent Catholic figures also were open to this possibility, such as Saint Augustine, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Basil).

It's a conflict between some early church tradition, and older ancient near east text criticism. Which results in a situation where, in protestant scholarship, it's not that God created chaos or death. But rather the creation was made out of chaos. Order made out of disorder. Deliverance out of chaos. Like creating a beautiful painting out of disordered or chaotic paint splatters. Or a beautiful clay pot out of unformed chaotic clay on a wheel.

God created the heavens and the earth, but the sea was always still there, beyond the raqia. (Until it was released during Noah's flood).

God never created darkness in Genesis either. God only created light. But the darkness was there in Genesis 1:2, despite this. Alongside the deep chaotic waters of the abyss (consider Jonah's experience with the deep). See NRSVue Gen 1:1-3 for reference.

And so when God says that the creation was very good, this would be in reference to the beauty that was created, not necessarily the waters of chaos beyond what was created. The waters restrained, beyond. It was the light that God created that was good, not necessarily the dark that proceeded it. Because the dark and deep are not actually part of the heavens or the earth. And death would be similar in that it was not created by God. Rather it is a product of the absence of God. Hence why when Adam and Eve are sentences to death, they are separated from God's tree of life.

And that's one of the core topics that, in terms of reconciliation of death in Genesis, I would have loved to see (and indeed, I was hunting for as I read through this book).

Either way, great book! I appreciate you sharing feedback! and I'll look forward to your content moving forward! I'll let the topic go from here! I look forward to reading more reviews!