What do you think?
Rate this book
Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science
What did the writer of Genesis mean by 'the first day'? Is it a literal week or a series of time periods? If I believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, am I denying the authority of Scripture? In response to the continuing controversy over the interpretation of the creation narrative in Genesis, John Lennox proposes a succinct method of reading and interpreting the first chapters of Genesis without discounting either science or Scripture. With examples from history, a brief but thorough exploration of the major interpretations, and a look into the particular significance of the creation of human beings, Lennox suggests that Christians can heed modern scientific knowledge while staying faithful to the biblical narrative. He moves beyond a simple response to the controversy, insisting that Genesis teaches us far more about the God of Jesus Christ and about God's intention for creation than it does about the age of the earth. With this book, Lennox offers a careful yet accessible introduction to a scientifically-savvy, theologically-astute, and Scripturally faithful interpretation of Genesis.
192 pages, Hardcover
First published August 9, 2011
955 people are currently reading
3977 people want to read
About the author
John C. Lennox
71 books932 followersJohn Carson Lennox is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an Adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. In addition, he teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme at the Executive Education Centre, Said Business School, Oxford University.
He studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA, MMath and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds an MA and DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Würzburg and Freiburg in Germany. He has lectured extensively in North America, Eastern and Western Europe and Australasia on mathematics, the philosophy of science and the intellectual defence of Christianity.
He has written a number of books on the interface between science, philosophy and theology. These include God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (2009), God and Stephen Hawking, a response to The Grand Design (2011), Gunning for God, on the new atheism (2011), and Seven Days that Divide the World, on the early chapters of Genesis (2011). Furthermore, in addition to over seventy published mathematical papers, he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series.
He studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA, MMath and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds an MA and DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Würzburg and Freiburg in Germany. He has lectured extensively in North America, Eastern and Western Europe and Australasia on mathematics, the philosophy of science and the intellectual defence of Christianity.
He has written a number of books on the interface between science, philosophy and theology. These include God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (2009), God and Stephen Hawking, a response to The Grand Design (2011), Gunning for God, on the new atheism (2011), and Seven Days that Divide the World, on the early chapters of Genesis (2011). Furthermore, in addition to over seventy published mathematical papers, he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 332 reviews
October 27, 2012
I am an atheist because of the difficulty I found in reconciling the biblical picture of creation with modern science. After ten years of being a young earth creationist who held the bible to be inspired from the Holy Spirit (and several years studying in a seminary who taught those views), I was flattened by reading Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time. My reading had been so myopic that I was allowed to believe only a small percentage of people accepted the old universe (and evolution). This led to a period of intense reading and realization that my own ignorance had allowed me to be indoctrinated. Since then, I have committed myself to reading and learning and examining both sides of every issue. This book presents a more believable approach to the days of creation issue. I am not ready to start attending worship again after reading this book by John Lennox, but I will say, had the views taught in this book been the ones I had been indoctrinated with, I might still be numbered among the rank of believers to this day. Everyone should give this book a read, regardless of the position you take.
December 29, 2011
This is a very unusual book authored by John Lennox. In the world of controversy regarding origins (of the universe and of life), it has been normal for authors to imply that any other viewpoints is either a sign of lack of intelligence, or a sign of lack of virtue. In this book by Lennox, he seeks to talk in a way that is respectful, and this is greatly appreciated. The book does not seek to push a Christian view of origins against an atheistic view, but rather, as a book written for Christians assumes a Christian world view with an acceptance of the value of scripture. From this perspective, Lennox then seeks to discuss what he believes is the most biblically, scientifically and intellectually reasonable interpretations of origins. He seeks to discuss all forms of the current Christian viewpoints but then suggests that only a limited set are reasonable. I did not agree with quite a bit of what he claimed yet greatly respect what he wrote. Even so, I was a bit disappointed that he completely missed some of the view that I personally find more convincing. Nevertheless, if all Christians were to listen to the likes of Lennox, the Christian community would be in a much better place, and would have a much better public voice. Well done Lennox.
April 1, 2016
Lennox seeks to present a "scientifically savvy, theologically astute, and scripturally faithful interpretation of Genesis" (back cover). He does this cautioning us to (i) take care to interpret Biblical passages in their proper context (p21-22), (ii) ensure we neither tie scripture too closely to science nor ignore science entirely (p36), and (iii) to approach the task with humility (p87). He applies this principle to the Galilean fixed-Earth controversy of the early 17th century.
Then things start to fall apart.
In Appendix A he notes the analysis of the first chapters of Genesis being written in elevated prose (not a strict narrative and not poetic but with elements of both). However, when examining Genesis in the main text of his book Lennox ignores this and instead treats the creation account as a narrative describing real historical events. In doing so he undermines point (i) above.
His response to the idea of the Genesis creation account as a myth is an ad hominem (p82-83). In Appendix B he berates a writer for making sweeping statements without any sort of citation (p136), yet when Lennox makes grand sweeping statements about how scientific evidence supports his view he provides no evidence. (He also formulates his ideas based entirely on scripture, almost entirely ignoring what science says - a violation of point (ii).) Towards the end of the book he quotes three biologists to try and give the impression that there is still some debate in the mainstream biology community about the validity of evolutionary theory. But it turns out only one of these three is a biologist (the other two are a philosopher and a linguist). When Lennox calls names, applies double standards and lies to his readers he is surely greatly lacking in humility (point (iii)).
Therefore, Lennox fails to live up to his own standards. The result is a book of broken arguments, absent logic, Bible verses taken hugely out of context and vague appeals to emotion and evidence that he never presents to us.
There are other problems.
Lennox is never clear on what his definition of "science" is. This is particularly problematic when he tries to argue against the idea that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria (p27-29). He repeatedly refers to himself as a "scientist" throughout the book. John Lennox is by trade a pure mathematician. Most people would not describe pure mathematics as "science" and Lennox makes no attempt to justify why mathematics is a branch of science. More worryingly, he describes taxonomy as a branch of science (and later equates the two) (p29,61). That is like saying the organisation of books on your shelf is a branch of the study of literature.
For a book subtitled "The Beginning According to Genesis and Science" there is very, very little actual science content - did Lennox forget his own book's title? Scientific ideas, when they appear, are discussed in the vaguest of terms. I was expecting at least a brief description of the idea of the Big Bang or evolution by natural selection. His treatment of both ideas is unsatisfactory.
Lennox shows that he has some understanding of the difference between the roles of science and religion when, in a discussion on the Big Bang, he criticises the idea that we must choose between science and God. Lennox writes that positing such a choice is "on the same foolish level as insisting we should choose between Henry Ford and a car-production line to explain the origin of the Ford Galaxy" (p153).
This is similar to the famous quote attributed to Galileo: "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." By this definition, science describes the mechanics of how things happen. Religion tries to understand why these things happen. Lennox is quite happy for the Big Bang, expansion of the universe and creation of the stars over billions of years to be a mechanism by which God creates his cosmos. (In the end he somewhat arbitrarily declares his support for the Day-Age theory, vaguely making reference to "fossil evidence" that supports his view (p55), but never actually citing any data.)
Unfortunately Lennox is somehow incapable of accepting evolution by natural selection as a mechanism through which God can act. Any time evolution is mentioned in the main body of text it is accompanied by words like "unguided" (p70) and "materialistic" (p86) in an attempt to discredit it. (This is essentially name-calling.) This is because he insists that the creation of Adam from dust must be a literal historical event.
I have already mentioned that Lennox supplies us with the arguments against treating the creation accounts as purely narrative texts in Appendix A but fails to realise how this undermines his position. But setting this aside, why does Lennox think Adam-from-dust was a historical event? Because Man was created in the image of God. Once again, Lennox's analysis falls apart because he has failed to adequately define what being created in the image of God actually means. He argues that because Man was created in the image of God he must have been made in "a direct special creation act" (p69-70). The logical argument he presents for this is incomplete. Instead, he justifies the literal Adam-from-dust theory with three New Testament verses. This is problematic because (i) these verses are referencing the Genesis account, making them circular citations, and (ii) only one of these verses actually makes reference to Adam-from-dust (1 Cor 15:47), and it is in relation to the theological distinction between Man and Jesus. It is not trying to argue that Adam was literally created from dust.
Lennox believes that the creation of Adam was "a direct special creation act" (p69) and regards evolution as an "unguided natural process" (p70); therefore, the two ideas must be incompatible. However, if Lennox is indeed a Bible-believing Christian (p12), then he will no doubt believe God is sovereign over all of his creation (Eph 1:11, Dan 4:35, Is 46:10-11, etc etc etc). In which case, in the same way that God has authority over every dice roll, he will also have authority over all natural processes. Even if an event or process appears random to us (i.e. it is difficult for us to predict based on our limited human understanding) its outcome is still known and ordained by God. Thus Lennox's objection to evolution is unfounded.
Lennox attempts to understand and refute "theistic evolution" in the final appendix of his book, but because he doesn't understand that God guides all processes in the universe and that the conflict he presents is a false one, the best he can do is dismiss the idea as "very hard to imagine" (p164).
Many of Lennox's other arguments are similarly weak.
In addressing the idea that Adam and Eve were not the first hominids he makes a straw man out of Denis Alexander, nitpicking the wording of his ideas instead of answering the fundamentals of his argument (p71-73). His response to the creation-as-myth camp is first an ad hominem, then to repeat a quote from the Fall passage and, without any explanation, say that this quote means it must be a real historical event (p82-83). Reiterating a Biblical quote is not the same as making an argument.
Lennox thinks that because humans are the only creatures described in the Bible as being made in the image of God, there must therefore be no other creatures made in the image of God (p100). This is clearly poor logic.
He takes the "and he saw that it was good" refrain and says this means God made his creation with "the joy and enthusiasm of a skilful artist" (p110-111). This is unfounded extrapolation. From this quote all we know is he saw creation was good; it says nothing about if he enjoyed creating it. This is a minor point, but it clearly illustrates the lack of logic in Lennox's arguments.
In Appendix D he tries to resolve the two creation stories in Genesis, but makes no mention of the other 20 or so creation stories that appear throughout the Bible. Why choose Gen 1 and/or Gen 3 over all the others?
Perhaps must ludicrously he says that the blame for the breakdown of marriage in modern Western culture should fundamentally lie with scientists because the root cause of this breakdown is the theory of evolution (p68). This is a particularly ignorant and slanderous comment.
Lennox argues that there are two types of God-of-the-gaps theories: the bad (caused by ignorance) and the good (found by discovery that we know we can't fill) (p171). He cites the singularity at the Big Bang as an example of a gap we know we can't fill with science, but this is untrue. We may not currently understand what happened at t=0, but it is wrong to say we never will. Indeed, cosmologists are currently trying to address this issue with e.g. the cyclic and ekpyrotic models. His other appeals for us to accept his God of the gaps fallacies (I can't believe I'm writing that) are emotional (p167-169) and tu quoque fallacies (p182-183).
There are numerous other problems, errors and half-hearted attempts at logic littered throughout the books, but I will stop here.
The discord between the evident poor quality of the arguments in this book and the glowing reviews it has received deeply trouble me. The start of this book, where Lennox gives the impression of respecting both scientific and theological thought, filled me with great hope. Yet in this book he is unwilling (or incapable?) of intelligently engaging with ideas that he disagrees with. It also becomes clear as the book goes on (and is stated more overtly in some of his other works) that he has little respect for biology as a discipline.
Others still have praised him for his humble tone. While I agree that his prose is generally well-written, I found the veneer of good nature gradually peel away with the various oversimplifications, personal attacks, misleading quotes and false appeals to authority. It felt like Lennox was (deliberately or unintentionally) trying to mislead me. There are a few points in this book where Lennox makes respectful arguments, but the fact that they are made against the backdrop of such poor scholarship means that even if this book does contain some points of value I would not dare recommend it to others.
Then things start to fall apart.
In Appendix A he notes the analysis of the first chapters of Genesis being written in elevated prose (not a strict narrative and not poetic but with elements of both). However, when examining Genesis in the main text of his book Lennox ignores this and instead treats the creation account as a narrative describing real historical events. In doing so he undermines point (i) above.
His response to the idea of the Genesis creation account as a myth is an ad hominem (p82-83). In Appendix B he berates a writer for making sweeping statements without any sort of citation (p136), yet when Lennox makes grand sweeping statements about how scientific evidence supports his view he provides no evidence. (He also formulates his ideas based entirely on scripture, almost entirely ignoring what science says - a violation of point (ii).) Towards the end of the book he quotes three biologists to try and give the impression that there is still some debate in the mainstream biology community about the validity of evolutionary theory. But it turns out only one of these three is a biologist (the other two are a philosopher and a linguist). When Lennox calls names, applies double standards and lies to his readers he is surely greatly lacking in humility (point (iii)).
Therefore, Lennox fails to live up to his own standards. The result is a book of broken arguments, absent logic, Bible verses taken hugely out of context and vague appeals to emotion and evidence that he never presents to us.
There are other problems.
Lennox is never clear on what his definition of "science" is. This is particularly problematic when he tries to argue against the idea that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria (p27-29). He repeatedly refers to himself as a "scientist" throughout the book. John Lennox is by trade a pure mathematician. Most people would not describe pure mathematics as "science" and Lennox makes no attempt to justify why mathematics is a branch of science. More worryingly, he describes taxonomy as a branch of science (and later equates the two) (p29,61). That is like saying the organisation of books on your shelf is a branch of the study of literature.
For a book subtitled "The Beginning According to Genesis and Science" there is very, very little actual science content - did Lennox forget his own book's title? Scientific ideas, when they appear, are discussed in the vaguest of terms. I was expecting at least a brief description of the idea of the Big Bang or evolution by natural selection. His treatment of both ideas is unsatisfactory.
Lennox shows that he has some understanding of the difference between the roles of science and religion when, in a discussion on the Big Bang, he criticises the idea that we must choose between science and God. Lennox writes that positing such a choice is "on the same foolish level as insisting we should choose between Henry Ford and a car-production line to explain the origin of the Ford Galaxy" (p153).
This is similar to the famous quote attributed to Galileo: "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." By this definition, science describes the mechanics of how things happen. Religion tries to understand why these things happen. Lennox is quite happy for the Big Bang, expansion of the universe and creation of the stars over billions of years to be a mechanism by which God creates his cosmos. (In the end he somewhat arbitrarily declares his support for the Day-Age theory, vaguely making reference to "fossil evidence" that supports his view (p55), but never actually citing any data.)
Unfortunately Lennox is somehow incapable of accepting evolution by natural selection as a mechanism through which God can act. Any time evolution is mentioned in the main body of text it is accompanied by words like "unguided" (p70) and "materialistic" (p86) in an attempt to discredit it. (This is essentially name-calling.) This is because he insists that the creation of Adam from dust must be a literal historical event.
I have already mentioned that Lennox supplies us with the arguments against treating the creation accounts as purely narrative texts in Appendix A but fails to realise how this undermines his position. But setting this aside, why does Lennox think Adam-from-dust was a historical event? Because Man was created in the image of God. Once again, Lennox's analysis falls apart because he has failed to adequately define what being created in the image of God actually means. He argues that because Man was created in the image of God he must have been made in "a direct special creation act" (p69-70). The logical argument he presents for this is incomplete. Instead, he justifies the literal Adam-from-dust theory with three New Testament verses. This is problematic because (i) these verses are referencing the Genesis account, making them circular citations, and (ii) only one of these verses actually makes reference to Adam-from-dust (1 Cor 15:47), and it is in relation to the theological distinction between Man and Jesus. It is not trying to argue that Adam was literally created from dust.
Lennox believes that the creation of Adam was "a direct special creation act" (p69) and regards evolution as an "unguided natural process" (p70); therefore, the two ideas must be incompatible. However, if Lennox is indeed a Bible-believing Christian (p12), then he will no doubt believe God is sovereign over all of his creation (Eph 1:11, Dan 4:35, Is 46:10-11, etc etc etc). In which case, in the same way that God has authority over every dice roll, he will also have authority over all natural processes. Even if an event or process appears random to us (i.e. it is difficult for us to predict based on our limited human understanding) its outcome is still known and ordained by God. Thus Lennox's objection to evolution is unfounded.
Lennox attempts to understand and refute "theistic evolution" in the final appendix of his book, but because he doesn't understand that God guides all processes in the universe and that the conflict he presents is a false one, the best he can do is dismiss the idea as "very hard to imagine" (p164).
Many of Lennox's other arguments are similarly weak.
In addressing the idea that Adam and Eve were not the first hominids he makes a straw man out of Denis Alexander, nitpicking the wording of his ideas instead of answering the fundamentals of his argument (p71-73). His response to the creation-as-myth camp is first an ad hominem, then to repeat a quote from the Fall passage and, without any explanation, say that this quote means it must be a real historical event (p82-83). Reiterating a Biblical quote is not the same as making an argument.
Lennox thinks that because humans are the only creatures described in the Bible as being made in the image of God, there must therefore be no other creatures made in the image of God (p100). This is clearly poor logic.
He takes the "and he saw that it was good" refrain and says this means God made his creation with "the joy and enthusiasm of a skilful artist" (p110-111). This is unfounded extrapolation. From this quote all we know is he saw creation was good; it says nothing about if he enjoyed creating it. This is a minor point, but it clearly illustrates the lack of logic in Lennox's arguments.
In Appendix D he tries to resolve the two creation stories in Genesis, but makes no mention of the other 20 or so creation stories that appear throughout the Bible. Why choose Gen 1 and/or Gen 3 over all the others?
Perhaps must ludicrously he says that the blame for the breakdown of marriage in modern Western culture should fundamentally lie with scientists because the root cause of this breakdown is the theory of evolution (p68). This is a particularly ignorant and slanderous comment.
Lennox argues that there are two types of God-of-the-gaps theories: the bad (caused by ignorance) and the good (found by discovery that we know we can't fill) (p171). He cites the singularity at the Big Bang as an example of a gap we know we can't fill with science, but this is untrue. We may not currently understand what happened at t=0, but it is wrong to say we never will. Indeed, cosmologists are currently trying to address this issue with e.g. the cyclic and ekpyrotic models. His other appeals for us to accept his God of the gaps fallacies (I can't believe I'm writing that) are emotional (p167-169) and tu quoque fallacies (p182-183).
There are numerous other problems, errors and half-hearted attempts at logic littered throughout the books, but I will stop here.
The discord between the evident poor quality of the arguments in this book and the glowing reviews it has received deeply trouble me. The start of this book, where Lennox gives the impression of respecting both scientific and theological thought, filled me with great hope. Yet in this book he is unwilling (or incapable?) of intelligently engaging with ideas that he disagrees with. It also becomes clear as the book goes on (and is stated more overtly in some of his other works) that he has little respect for biology as a discipline.
Others still have praised him for his humble tone. While I agree that his prose is generally well-written, I found the veneer of good nature gradually peel away with the various oversimplifications, personal attacks, misleading quotes and false appeals to authority. It felt like Lennox was (deliberately or unintentionally) trying to mislead me. There are a few points in this book where Lennox makes respectful arguments, but the fact that they are made against the backdrop of such poor scholarship means that even if this book does contain some points of value I would not dare recommend it to others.
December 28, 2020
As a young-earth creationist, I chose to read this book to hear an old-earth argument on how science and the Bible (particularly Genesis 1) intersect. While I feared that Lennox might shake my beliefs and cause me to reconsider my stance on Genesis 1 and the age of the universe, in reality I found his suggestions and ideas to be rather unconvincing and far-fetched. While I appreciate his heart and desire to see science and the Bible come together (something that I would argue he actually does pretty well), I believe that it is very dangerous to compromise what the Bible teaches in the name of looking intellectual or up-to-date. He uses the fixed-earth versus moving-earth argument to show that Christians have been wrong about science before based on their interpretation of the Bible, but I believe that his comparison of the two arguments is faulty. After all, the passages that suggest a fixed earth are all in the poetical books and are clearly metaphorical (though from a gravitational and even spiritual standpoint, perhaps the earth really is "fixed" in some way that allows for it truly have foundation pillars as the text suggests?), whereas Genesis 1 is written as historical narrative with the rest of the Bible referring back to it as such. Textual issues aside, the implied solution from Lennox is that all Bible-believing Christians must always be open to tweaking or adjusting their beliefs if science comes out with data that challenges them, and that argument both makes science more authoritative than Scripture and leads to all kinds of problems in our pseudo-science driven world in which many elements of science (such as gender, sin, the nature of humanity, marriage, counseling, etc...) are now diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible. Should we compromise with those elements of science, too?
One part of the book that I found to be excellent (which is the only reason why I gave the book 2 stars instead of 1) was Chapter 5: The Message Of Genesis 1. As a young-earth creationist, I think that one of the biggest faults of myself and my fellow young-earthers is that we read and study Genesis 1 looking only for scientific and young-earth evidence or content. While that is important to study and extremely necessary in our current culture's scientific focuses, I think we run the risk of missing the forest for the trees when we make that our primary focus. The main point of Genesis 1 is to tell us about God, who He is, and what He did/does, and then to tell us about humanity and its value as being made in God's image to rule as vice-regents on the earth He created. Lennox explains these principles masterfully, adding in points about light versus darkness that are extremely insightful (drawn from Jesus' words in the Gospels about walking in the light). Anyone who comes across this book in a library should borrow it even if it is only to read Chapter 5!
One part of the book that I found to be excellent (which is the only reason why I gave the book 2 stars instead of 1) was Chapter 5: The Message Of Genesis 1. As a young-earth creationist, I think that one of the biggest faults of myself and my fellow young-earthers is that we read and study Genesis 1 looking only for scientific and young-earth evidence or content. While that is important to study and extremely necessary in our current culture's scientific focuses, I think we run the risk of missing the forest for the trees when we make that our primary focus. The main point of Genesis 1 is to tell us about God, who He is, and what He did/does, and then to tell us about humanity and its value as being made in God's image to rule as vice-regents on the earth He created. Lennox explains these principles masterfully, adding in points about light versus darkness that are extremely insightful (drawn from Jesus' words in the Gospels about walking in the light). Anyone who comes across this book in a library should borrow it even if it is only to read Chapter 5!
June 20, 2024
Not necessarily a fun, easy read, but a helpful one. Lennox provides useful context and commentary that should influence which lines are the important ones to draw in the Genesis debate.
But while these questions have their place; I do tire of the debate and appreciated these lines from the final paragraphs of the book:
"It is one thing to wrestle with the meaning of the days of Genesis; it is another to understand, apply, and live the whole message of Genesis. And if we are not doing the latter, I am not sure that the former will profit us much."
But while these questions have their place; I do tire of the debate and appreciated these lines from the final paragraphs of the book:
"It is one thing to wrestle with the meaning of the days of Genesis; it is another to understand, apply, and live the whole message of Genesis. And if we are not doing the latter, I am not sure that the former will profit us much."
April 29, 2022
"Mari sunt lucrările Domnului, cercetate de toți cei care le iubesc"-Ps 111:2
Lenox face o scurta incursiune prin cele mai vechi până la cele mai noi idei despre cele 7 zile ale creației din Genesa.
Echilibrul și caracterul rezonabil al felului în care scrie e delicios de atractiv. Nu-ți îndeasă idei prefabricate pe gât, argumentează elegant fiecare poziție și acolo unde e cazul taie cu ascuțișul minții sale teorii și poziții, frumos, ca un gentilom, plin de blândețe și smerenie. Pare-se că m-a scutit de a-mi pierde timpul citind câteva cărți cam aiurite:)).
De altfel, cartea poate fi un ghid bun în reînnoirea perspectivei cu privire la modul în care citim și interpretăm textul. Dacă în trecut greșeala creștinului în citirea textului a fost de a vedea mai mult decât spune textul (într-o manieră "literalistă"), mai nou la fel de periculoasă ca prima este a vedea mai puțin decât ceea ce textul spune (într-o manieră reducționistă).
Pentru că o parte din teoria pe care o aveam nici măcar nu s-a menționat în carte, mă pune pe gânduri. Ori e proastă ori sunt un geniu. O să mă pun pe cercetare și mai vedem noi, deși cred că e evident care e răspunsul:))
PS. E bună, dar mai degrabă ca un starter. Deschide apetitul pentru cartea cealaltă, "God's undertaker-has science buried God "
Lenox face o scurta incursiune prin cele mai vechi până la cele mai noi idei despre cele 7 zile ale creației din Genesa.
Echilibrul și caracterul rezonabil al felului în care scrie e delicios de atractiv. Nu-ți îndeasă idei prefabricate pe gât, argumentează elegant fiecare poziție și acolo unde e cazul taie cu ascuțișul minții sale teorii și poziții, frumos, ca un gentilom, plin de blândețe și smerenie. Pare-se că m-a scutit de a-mi pierde timpul citind câteva cărți cam aiurite:)).
De altfel, cartea poate fi un ghid bun în reînnoirea perspectivei cu privire la modul în care citim și interpretăm textul. Dacă în trecut greșeala creștinului în citirea textului a fost de a vedea mai mult decât spune textul (într-o manieră "literalistă"), mai nou la fel de periculoasă ca prima este a vedea mai puțin decât ceea ce textul spune (într-o manieră reducționistă).
Pentru că o parte din teoria pe care o aveam nici măcar nu s-a menționat în carte, mă pune pe gânduri. Ori e proastă ori sunt un geniu. O să mă pun pe cercetare și mai vedem noi, deși cred că e evident care e răspunsul:))
PS. E bună, dar mai degrabă ca un starter. Deschide apetitul pentru cartea cealaltă, "God's undertaker-has science buried God "
Want to read
April 16, 2025I’ve been taught about this subject by a family friend, that the creation of the world wasn’t literally 7 days. Pointing out specific word choices, she explained how the written verses show time passing
Not gonna lie, it was a very confusing lesson. I still need to refresh.
Most Christians accept it was 7 literal days, but I didn’t realize there was a book about this! A must read now.
Not gonna lie, it was a very confusing lesson. I still need to refresh.
Most Christians accept it was 7 literal days, but I didn’t realize there was a book about this! A must read now.
February 4, 2023
Seven Days that Divide the World was an absolutely excellent short introduction to the alleged problems between the Genesis creation account and science.
Irish mathematician John Lennox has been researching this project his entire life, and so, though this book is a short one, it is densely packed, both scientifically, and theologically.
I enjoyed Lennox’s careful depth in treating not just the scientific issues surrounding the Biblical text, but also the theological issues raised by these grapplings. It seems a bit of a rare thing when both science and theology are handled well, and fairly (at least from my own meager reading on these subjects). Lennox’s interactions with both the scientific and theological material on this subject is gold!
The book is structured in a helpful way and analyzes the issues at hand pretty thoroughly. From the alleged historical religion vs. science debate, to Bible interpretation, to the Hebrew text of the Genesis origin story itself - Lennox has amazing insights. He also goes into some theological controversies in the several appendices at the end of the book - all of which will interest anyone reading this book. Theologians and scientists on all sides of the spectrum are quoted and interacted with frequently - and Lennox works to develop a wise, and educated view on Genesis that is faithful to both the science at hand, and to Scripture.
Lennox, through this all, is admirably open handed in regard to this controversy - which I found very refreshing. He explains most of the positives and the negatives of each view as one who has grappled with them each personally - but knows that the position one has on this issue is not a hill to die on - and presents it very fairly in light of this.
All in all, an excellent read on the Genesis controversy.
[Side Note: I also found it fascinating that there is a long list of ancient to modern theologians who did not believe the days in Genesis 1 were literal 24 days. For example: Irenaeus, Ambrose, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origin, Augustine, Hilary, Heinrich Bullinger, Thomas Chalmers, Charles Spurgeon, Herman Bavinck, Benjamin Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Karl Henry. With the possible exception of the modern theologians, these theologians believed the days were not 24 hour time periods (or even time periods at all in many cases) for textual reasons rather than scientific ones.]
Irish mathematician John Lennox has been researching this project his entire life, and so, though this book is a short one, it is densely packed, both scientifically, and theologically.
I enjoyed Lennox’s careful depth in treating not just the scientific issues surrounding the Biblical text, but also the theological issues raised by these grapplings. It seems a bit of a rare thing when both science and theology are handled well, and fairly (at least from my own meager reading on these subjects). Lennox’s interactions with both the scientific and theological material on this subject is gold!
The book is structured in a helpful way and analyzes the issues at hand pretty thoroughly. From the alleged historical religion vs. science debate, to Bible interpretation, to the Hebrew text of the Genesis origin story itself - Lennox has amazing insights. He also goes into some theological controversies in the several appendices at the end of the book - all of which will interest anyone reading this book. Theologians and scientists on all sides of the spectrum are quoted and interacted with frequently - and Lennox works to develop a wise, and educated view on Genesis that is faithful to both the science at hand, and to Scripture.
Lennox, through this all, is admirably open handed in regard to this controversy - which I found very refreshing. He explains most of the positives and the negatives of each view as one who has grappled with them each personally - but knows that the position one has on this issue is not a hill to die on - and presents it very fairly in light of this.
All in all, an excellent read on the Genesis controversy.
[Side Note: I also found it fascinating that there is a long list of ancient to modern theologians who did not believe the days in Genesis 1 were literal 24 days. For example: Irenaeus, Ambrose, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origin, Augustine, Hilary, Heinrich Bullinger, Thomas Chalmers, Charles Spurgeon, Herman Bavinck, Benjamin Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Karl Henry. With the possible exception of the modern theologians, these theologians believed the days were not 24 hour time periods (or even time periods at all in many cases) for textual reasons rather than scientific ones.]
February 24, 2013
John Lennox is among the world's leading apologists, in my view, because he combines several admirable qualities: he is a bona fide expert on a relevant discipline (although mathematics is about as far away from most of the things he talks about as an apologist as one would want to be, since math at his level is as much art form as it is a science of discovery); he communicates clearly and at the right level for his audience; he has read widely in sources that matter (including a remarkable number of sources in the history of Christian thought); he generally exercises good sense about what does and doesn't count as a good argument, whether on his side or on his opponents'; and he seems to play fair, without special pleading or other manipulative rhetoric.
This book runs into trouble chiefly on the problem of (natural) evil, particularly on the problem of animal pain, both before the Fall and afterward. Whence animal pain? If Satan is somehow to be blamed (and Lennox is open to an explanation involving the devil), then we now have a second conundrum, namely, Satan's position in the cosmos under God's Providence. Is Satan "the prince of this world" by exile or by us handing the world of which we are to be lords over to him? If he is already lord, then what is our role vis-à-vis his? And how could God call such a world, ruled by Satan and full of animal pain, "very good" at the end of the Genesis 1 creation account? The theologico-chronological problems here are serious.
They are serious, however, for everyone tackling these questions these days. The state of the art on this question is, frankly, that orthodox theologians generally have not agreed on a reconciliation of what we think we know about paleontology (including a long record of apparent animal suffering and death before the emergence of human beings) with what we think we know about the Fall and its consequences for the rest of creation.
Lennox also gets into some theological difficulties elsewhere--on the Trinity, on an anthropocentric construal of "the ends for which God created the world," and one or two other spots--but, again, he has good company there in the history of Christian reflection.
These caveats notwithstanding, however, Lennox sets an admirable standard indeed for apologetics. His writing brims with interesting information and argumentation, and his tone is just right: confident, but also humble; assertive, but also receptive; adversarial at times, but collegial throughout. This book, along with others of his on similar themes (such as "God's Undertaker") are exactly what Christians need to respond to Dawkins and Hawking and the other not-so-New Atheists, but also, and more importantly, to the honest questions every thoughtful and informed person--including Christian persons--asks about God and the natural world.
This book runs into trouble chiefly on the problem of (natural) evil, particularly on the problem of animal pain, both before the Fall and afterward. Whence animal pain? If Satan is somehow to be blamed (and Lennox is open to an explanation involving the devil), then we now have a second conundrum, namely, Satan's position in the cosmos under God's Providence. Is Satan "the prince of this world" by exile or by us handing the world of which we are to be lords over to him? If he is already lord, then what is our role vis-à-vis his? And how could God call such a world, ruled by Satan and full of animal pain, "very good" at the end of the Genesis 1 creation account? The theologico-chronological problems here are serious.
They are serious, however, for everyone tackling these questions these days. The state of the art on this question is, frankly, that orthodox theologians generally have not agreed on a reconciliation of what we think we know about paleontology (including a long record of apparent animal suffering and death before the emergence of human beings) with what we think we know about the Fall and its consequences for the rest of creation.
Lennox also gets into some theological difficulties elsewhere--on the Trinity, on an anthropocentric construal of "the ends for which God created the world," and one or two other spots--but, again, he has good company there in the history of Christian reflection.
These caveats notwithstanding, however, Lennox sets an admirable standard indeed for apologetics. His writing brims with interesting information and argumentation, and his tone is just right: confident, but also humble; assertive, but also receptive; adversarial at times, but collegial throughout. This book, along with others of his on similar themes (such as "God's Undertaker") are exactly what Christians need to respond to Dawkins and Hawking and the other not-so-New Atheists, but also, and more importantly, to the honest questions every thoughtful and informed person--including Christian persons--asks about God and the natural world.
May 9, 2017
Not worth the read. Great apologist for every view except a young earth as he would say "literalistic view". Takes great strides and makes large assumption on what it can mean rather than what it does. Compares young earth creationists to geocentric philosophers in a universe that is clearly heliocentric. A great majority of the book is spent stretching the point that we should at least consider it could mean other things and then bending linguistics a thousand different ways to basically say it can mean anything but a literal 7 days. Touches on some of the major issues but anything that points towards 7 days he quickly retreats to every which way it could mean anything else while ignoring what he just stated scripture said. Very disappointed. Surprised some of the people who recommended the book on the back dust-jacket. I agree we should consider all viewpoints but ultimately the chief litmus test is regardless of what linguistic style we "think" may be used is it in harmony with the rest of scripture.
May 27, 2012
Probably my favourite author on science and faith. I had been looking forward to reading this book for months. Chapter 3 and Appendix E were excellent reads and the tipping point in my choosing to give the book 5 stars.
April 8, 2013
An insightful, engaging, fascinating read. John Lennox addresses a thorny issue with intelligence and grace. Highly recommended.
August 6, 2025
There are some great thoughts within these pages.
It’s definitely worth the read, and a good book to go through with your high school student; it explores Biblical science, namely Creation, and will encourage critical thinking, open-mindedness, and reinforce Biblical authority.
Let this book challenge your thinking and preconceptions!
Ages: 16+
Content Considerations: nothing to note.
**Like my reviews? Then you should follow me! Because I have hundreds more just like this one. With each review, I provide Content Considerations, mentioning any objectionable content I come across so that parents and/or conscientious readers (like me) can determine beforehand whether they want to read a book or not. Content surprises are super annoying, especially when you’re 100+ pages in, so here’s my attempt to help you avoid that!
If you’re considering a book or looking for a new title to read, check out my highly categorized shelves, read my reviews and Friend or Follow me to spiff up your feed with clean, wholesome, living books.
I have an Instagram account that’s pretty bookishly unique too!
It’s definitely worth the read, and a good book to go through with your high school student; it explores Biblical science, namely Creation, and will encourage critical thinking, open-mindedness, and reinforce Biblical authority.
Let this book challenge your thinking and preconceptions!
Ages: 16+
Content Considerations: nothing to note.
**Like my reviews? Then you should follow me! Because I have hundreds more just like this one. With each review, I provide Content Considerations, mentioning any objectionable content I come across so that parents and/or conscientious readers (like me) can determine beforehand whether they want to read a book or not. Content surprises are super annoying, especially when you’re 100+ pages in, so here’s my attempt to help you avoid that!
If you’re considering a book or looking for a new title to read, check out my highly categorized shelves, read my reviews and Friend or Follow me to spiff up your feed with clean, wholesome, living books.
I have an Instagram account that’s pretty bookishly unique too!
Read
August 21, 2025This was a serious theological dive into the controversy especially among American Evangelicals about the 6 days of creation as described in the first chapter of the Bible.
It is thoughtful and treats the objections of both sides seriously even as he analyzes it from the serious prospective of someone who believes the Bible to be authoritative.
If you want to understand what a strict reading of the text must say and can say, this book covers the topic pretty fairly.
He does not spend much time on what he thinks, but rather strives to explain the various interpretations that range from strictly literal to the abstract and figurative.
At the end the author seeks to affirm that the scripture must be taken seriously by serious Christians and that that a serious reading of Genesis 1 has an acceptable range of serious interpretations that strongly affirm Christian core doctrines.
I found this helpful. Maybe you will too.
It is thoughtful and treats the objections of both sides seriously even as he analyzes it from the serious prospective of someone who believes the Bible to be authoritative.
If you want to understand what a strict reading of the text must say and can say, this book covers the topic pretty fairly.
He does not spend much time on what he thinks, but rather strives to explain the various interpretations that range from strictly literal to the abstract and figurative.
At the end the author seeks to affirm that the scripture must be taken seriously by serious Christians and that that a serious reading of Genesis 1 has an acceptable range of serious interpretations that strongly affirm Christian core doctrines.
I found this helpful. Maybe you will too.
April 9, 2024
A religious defense of an older earth that takes the Christian Bible as its authoritative starting point, and reads the entire book of Genesis, including the first chapters, as a history (in contrast with more analogically inclined old earth perspectives that differentiate between a poetic genre for the first chapters and a historical genre for the rest of the book). Most rhetorically compelling to me were his observations of the difficulty the church fathers had engaging the early part of Genesis, and the distinction between human and animal death (the theology of death is of great interest and significance to me, and while I was not convinced by all his points, he made some good ones). The book addresses religious and non-religious readers, but Lennox is careful to establish himself as a part of the orthodox Christian tradition with emphases on credal faith, Scriptural authority, the incarnation and resurrection, and miracles.
January 14, 2025
I haven't read all the appendices yet, but overall this was a very solid read that explores several possible ways to read Genesis, and offers a few ways to think about the importance of humility in our interpretations and what's most important in the Bible.
March 25, 2021
Once again, Dr. Lennox delivered a scholarly perspective that lay readers can enjoy without being overwhelmed by advanced vocabularies. The first thing that Dr. Lennox pointed out for the Western audience was the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 that conveyed the view of the seven days being literally a seven-day work-week in a consecutive order. He stated that this interpretation came from "Archbishop Ussher (1581-1656) in Northern Ireland" (Lennox, 2011, p. 12). Also, Lennox pointed out that the archbishop derived his calculations for the earth's origin from his literal interpretation of seven 24-hour days, thus leading to the estimation that the earth originated in 4004 B.C. (Lennox, 2011). However, this interpretation is not the oldest one made over the last 2,000 years of Christianity. Many interpretations of Genesis 1 are explored throughout the first five chapters in Lennox's book.
A second valuable point of Lennox's (2011) study pertained to the tendency of "tying interpretation of Scripture too closely to the science of the day" (p. 36). This aspect relates to another study done by Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn argued that cultural paradigms greatly influence a scientist's worldview which then influences his or her interpretation of data, or even Scripture. In fact, this fact can be shown in the use of common fallacies to interpret Genesis 1. Just as many Christians are guilty of committing the "God of the gaps" fallacy, many pro-Darwinists and pro-evolutionists are guilty of committing the "evolution of the gaps" fallacy (Lennox, 2011, p. 182). The truth is that God could have created all things however He wanted to, for He is never constrained by the limits we face.
The third valuable point that Lennox made pertained to this question: Which one came first, sin or death? If evolution theory is right, then human death could have existed far longer than any theology existed. Therefore, any theologian, historian, moralist, philosopher, religious authority, evolutionist, or human scientist is caught in a real crash of truth claims that may no longer hold validity at all. In fact, the very meaning of "sin" becomes hindered by profound challenges to its origin. The human history of right and wrong historically led back to human death caused by the ancient rebellion against God which caused the fall from the Garden of Eden. If death came before sin, then where does that leave our understanding of the whole picture?
A second valuable point of Lennox's (2011) study pertained to the tendency of "tying interpretation of Scripture too closely to the science of the day" (p. 36). This aspect relates to another study done by Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn argued that cultural paradigms greatly influence a scientist's worldview which then influences his or her interpretation of data, or even Scripture. In fact, this fact can be shown in the use of common fallacies to interpret Genesis 1. Just as many Christians are guilty of committing the "God of the gaps" fallacy, many pro-Darwinists and pro-evolutionists are guilty of committing the "evolution of the gaps" fallacy (Lennox, 2011, p. 182). The truth is that God could have created all things however He wanted to, for He is never constrained by the limits we face.
The third valuable point that Lennox made pertained to this question: Which one came first, sin or death? If evolution theory is right, then human death could have existed far longer than any theology existed. Therefore, any theologian, historian, moralist, philosopher, religious authority, evolutionist, or human scientist is caught in a real crash of truth claims that may no longer hold validity at all. In fact, the very meaning of "sin" becomes hindered by profound challenges to its origin. The human history of right and wrong historically led back to human death caused by the ancient rebellion against God which caused the fall from the Garden of Eden. If death came before sin, then where does that leave our understanding of the whole picture?
February 28, 2024
Lennox is such a winsome and gentle communicator! I was impressed with the vast amount of information contained in this book, the questions he brought up, and the implications for the Christian faith. This book honored Biblical, scientific, literary, and historical studies and scholars. I’d recommend to those interested in cosmology and the Bible!
November 27, 2016
I was torn between two and three stars for this one. In the end, I decided to go with three stars, just because I love Lennox and there are some good thoughts in here. But man, was this book a mess. Lennox, as always, has great ideas, but the organization and depth of this book is lacking in so many ways.
First, I have to get this initial annoyance out of the way: the heliocentric vs. geocentric analogy he used in the beginning of the book is flawed. Lennox connects this example to the current "creation" vs. "evolution" theories that seem to be pitched together in a dichotomy today. I *think* he does this only to demonstrate that past church fathers/scientists who believed in a geocentric model were and still are credible, despite the fact that they believed in a theory which we now know to be false. I see why he does this, and it makes sense. But is this the only reason for the analogy? It can only go so far.
The huge flaw in this analogy is that one can 100% absolutely prove that the heliocentric model is correct. We can literally send people into space to watch the earth rotate around the sun. This is something one can observe and test in multiple different ways, in many scientific fields. But this analogy doesn't work in comparison to creation theories, because there's no way to observe or test creation. We can't go back to the beginning of time and watch how God created the earth. The only thing we can ever do is add up the little evidence we have, and choose the best theory to believe. Our thoughts about what the Bible says about creation can never be proven wrong or right, purely scientifically, because we can never observe it happening in our universe.
Okay, now that that's out of the way, let me get to the basic problem with this book: organization and quality of writing. Lennox seems to love the topic, but this book never seems to coherently organize and present his own ideas. He loves to wash over things, glance at them, but never draw any conclusions.
His two main points which I scrounged out of this book seem to be: 1) there is a beginning to the universe; 2) the first seven 'days' which make up the first week of creation in Genesis didn't have to be 24 hour days. Okay, fine, I can agree with you that they weren't exactly 24 hour days (sure, the universe has changed some since then). But the problem comes when you don't draw a line between exact 24 hour days of creation, and humans originating from Darwinian macro-evolution. There's some huge gaps in there, with many details to address, and Lennox doesn't draw this line and define these details clearly. He bit off more than he could chew.
He sort of, kinda, halfheartedly tries to address some of these problems in chapter four. But he never actually gives answers. And that's the whole problem with the book: in general, the most he ever seemed to do was present potential problems, discuss potential responses, but he could never round up his thoughts into coherent answers. I mean, I realize that Lennox can't write an exhaustive 600 page investigation here, but come on -- at least try to meet me half way! What's even the point of this book? It felt like he was throwing out ideas and hoped they'd come together before his manuscript deadline. The sad thing is, he's smart enough to address all the details here! I'd love to hear him investigate this, but he doesn't do it in an organized fashion.
The whole structure of the entire book leaves much to be desired. Not only are the actual chapters inconsistent, roughly structured, and leave me wanting more, but the appendix makes up half the book. Lennox tries so hard to limit his explanations and keep the writing small in scope, which is understandable, but holds it back so much that he ends up shortchanging himself in the process. He barely ends up saying anything at all. I can understand how he's drawing a line between believing the earth is old, and believing in macro-evolution as an explanation for human existence. There is a distinction there that I'd love to explore. But what else? What are its implications? He barely scratches the surface, and it's a shame.
I might come back and edit this review again later, but I had to get my thoughts down tonight.
First, I have to get this initial annoyance out of the way: the heliocentric vs. geocentric analogy he used in the beginning of the book is flawed. Lennox connects this example to the current "creation" vs. "evolution" theories that seem to be pitched together in a dichotomy today. I *think* he does this only to demonstrate that past church fathers/scientists who believed in a geocentric model were and still are credible, despite the fact that they believed in a theory which we now know to be false. I see why he does this, and it makes sense. But is this the only reason for the analogy? It can only go so far.
The huge flaw in this analogy is that one can 100% absolutely prove that the heliocentric model is correct. We can literally send people into space to watch the earth rotate around the sun. This is something one can observe and test in multiple different ways, in many scientific fields. But this analogy doesn't work in comparison to creation theories, because there's no way to observe or test creation. We can't go back to the beginning of time and watch how God created the earth. The only thing we can ever do is add up the little evidence we have, and choose the best theory to believe. Our thoughts about what the Bible says about creation can never be proven wrong or right, purely scientifically, because we can never observe it happening in our universe.
Okay, now that that's out of the way, let me get to the basic problem with this book: organization and quality of writing. Lennox seems to love the topic, but this book never seems to coherently organize and present his own ideas. He loves to wash over things, glance at them, but never draw any conclusions.
His two main points which I scrounged out of this book seem to be: 1) there is a beginning to the universe; 2) the first seven 'days' which make up the first week of creation in Genesis didn't have to be 24 hour days. Okay, fine, I can agree with you that they weren't exactly 24 hour days (sure, the universe has changed some since then). But the problem comes when you don't draw a line between exact 24 hour days of creation, and humans originating from Darwinian macro-evolution. There's some huge gaps in there, with many details to address, and Lennox doesn't draw this line and define these details clearly. He bit off more than he could chew.
He sort of, kinda, halfheartedly tries to address some of these problems in chapter four. But he never actually gives answers. And that's the whole problem with the book: in general, the most he ever seemed to do was present potential problems, discuss potential responses, but he could never round up his thoughts into coherent answers. I mean, I realize that Lennox can't write an exhaustive 600 page investigation here, but come on -- at least try to meet me half way! What's even the point of this book? It felt like he was throwing out ideas and hoped they'd come together before his manuscript deadline. The sad thing is, he's smart enough to address all the details here! I'd love to hear him investigate this, but he doesn't do it in an organized fashion.
The whole structure of the entire book leaves much to be desired. Not only are the actual chapters inconsistent, roughly structured, and leave me wanting more, but the appendix makes up half the book. Lennox tries so hard to limit his explanations and keep the writing small in scope, which is understandable, but holds it back so much that he ends up shortchanging himself in the process. He barely ends up saying anything at all. I can understand how he's drawing a line between believing the earth is old, and believing in macro-evolution as an explanation for human existence. There is a distinction there that I'd love to explore. But what else? What are its implications? He barely scratches the surface, and it's a shame.
I might come back and edit this review again later, but I had to get my thoughts down tonight.
September 8, 2019
Az az 5 az inkább csak 4,5*, mert be kell valljam: az utolsó 20 oldalra már nem maradt türelmem. Amúgy is csak „függelék” a szerző szerint, így azért merészelek véleményt mondani a könyv többi része alapján.
Nagyon tanulságos olvasmány volt. Igazság szerint bennem soha nem ütközött az Isten teremtő munkája a természettudományos eredményekkel. Az „én Istenem” simán tud evolúciót is teremteni :D
Mégis jó volt egymás mellett látni a különféle elméleteket, megérteni, ki mit és miért úgy gondolt. És egészen érthető konyhanyelven. Nem kell hozzá sem teológusul, sem természettudósul, sem hívőül, sem ateistául tudni. És ez roppant szimpatikus.
Nem tukmálta rám a saját elképzelését, de segített a sajátom kialakításában.
Igényes a kiadás is: egy könyv, amit fél kézzel is lehet olvasni, mert a kemény fedelével szépen kinyílik és nem törik, nem potyog, nem hullik, nem hajlik. (bocsánat, az utóbbi időben sokat olvastam e-könyvet, úgyhogy most a papírkönyv tiszta élményszámba megy nálam :D)
Nagyon tanulságos olvasmány volt. Igazság szerint bennem soha nem ütközött az Isten teremtő munkája a természettudományos eredményekkel. Az „én Istenem” simán tud evolúciót is teremteni :D
Mégis jó volt egymás mellett látni a különféle elméleteket, megérteni, ki mit és miért úgy gondolt. És egészen érthető konyhanyelven. Nem kell hozzá sem teológusul, sem természettudósul, sem hívőül, sem ateistául tudni. És ez roppant szimpatikus.
Nem tukmálta rám a saját elképzelését, de segített a sajátom kialakításában.
Igényes a kiadás is: egy könyv, amit fél kézzel is lehet olvasni, mert a kemény fedelével szépen kinyílik és nem törik, nem potyog, nem hullik, nem hajlik. (bocsánat, az utóbbi időben sokat olvastam e-könyvet, úgyhogy most a papírkönyv tiszta élményszámba megy nálam :D)
January 3, 2024
Thoroughly interesting and easily accessible explanation of the scientific explanation and the Biblical explanation of Creation. I appreciate the conversation on the fallacy of our own interpretation of the Bible.
February 2, 2023
This book is shorter (and smaller) than I imagined it to be. It is, nevertheless, quite an exhilarating read that is fast-paced and accessible; it does not get bogged down in either scientific or theological jargon. Dr. Lennox has given me much to consider in considering the intentions and interpretations of Genesis 1-2. Fascinating read regardless of one’s position on the subject matter of Creation and Evolution. I much appreciated Dr. Lennox’s approachable style too—it made the reading (of which I did in 4 chunks) smooth and enjoyable.
June 23, 2021
A really grounded set of ideas on Genesis, in the same style with which I was already used to. John Lennox made the effort of expressing those opinions (even if not at all simple) with as much common sense as possible
Read
January 15, 2025Seven Days That Divide the World is an introductory rebuttal to the modern young-earth creationism model. I appreciate the way Lennox respectfully argues his points; his writing does not leave one feeling forced to believe his arguments. This book, however, left me with loose ends and somewhat conflicting ideas at times. The topic is a broad one that would be impossible to address in one volume, but I wish Lennox had expanded his arguments in some places.
It seems one of his goals is to make a person think, to think well, to think respectfully and charitably of others with opposing beliefs; Lennox achieved this purpose.
It seems one of his goals is to make a person think, to think well, to think respectfully and charitably of others with opposing beliefs; Lennox achieved this purpose.
March 2, 2021
Sinnsykt bra. Klar og ydmyk håndtering av et konfliktfylt tema!
November 30, 2012
Dr. Lennox did an amazing job examining what is known as "Old Earth Creationism." Old Earth Creationism is the belief that God created the universe in six eras of time as opposed to Young Earth Creationists who believe that the world was created in 6, 24-hour periods. Lennox shows in a thrilling manner that the Genesis account does not necessitate a young earth view. "Here we see that, although Scripture could be understood as teaching that the earth is young, it DOES NOT HAVE to be interpreted in this way" (Lennox, 53, all caps mine). "However, there is another possibility: that the writer did not intend us to think of the first six days as days of a single earth week, but rather as a sequence of six 'creation' days; that is, days of normal length (with evenings and mornings as the text says) in which God acted to create something new, but days that might well have been separated by long periods of time" (Lennox, 54).
Dr. Lennox shows that a belief in Old Earth Creationism does not necessarily mean that the Old Earth Creationist believes in Neo-Darwinist evolution. Lennox shows that cosmology belief does not demand a biological belief as some Young Earth Creationists believe. Lennox believes in six historical days, but shows the six historical days occurring within the time-frame of a six epoch time frame of an indeterminate time. With Lennox's interpretation, one could adhere to a literalist interpretation of the Bible along with the acceptance of the 11 billion year history that scientific data tends to show.
Lennox also deals with the creation of humanity which he shows as a special act of God. Lennox quotes C.S. Lewis to clear up a discrepancy upon which I have thought intensely. If the universe and earth are old, then why was it that some animals seemed to prey upon other animals and why was there death before humanity entered the scene? Lennox, alluding to Lewis, shows that there is not a discrepancy after all. Scripture shows that in Romans 5:12, Paul refers to human death entering the scene by human sin. However, sin may have been already been present because there was a rebellious person already present...Satan. So according to Lennox's interpretation, sin entered creation by the fall of Satan and sin entered humanity by the choice of Adam and Eve. Therefore, there is no discrepancy after all. It appears from the onset, that Lennox clarifies why there could be death in the natural world before sin entered the human world. This would also explain why God created a special garden to create Adam and Eve. From Lennox's own testimony, he does not give an exhaustive exposition of this issue, but from my perspective, he clarifies a lot of misunderstanding for those who oppose Old Earth Creationism.
If you are open to examine Old Earth Creationism and how creation and science can be blended, then I would highly recommend this book to you.
I conclude this review of Lennox's book with some insights given by Lennox himself.
"So what is the best way forward? There seem to me to be four salient considerations:
The current scientific evidence for an ancient earth.
The honest and admirable admission of prominent young-earth creationists that "recent creationists should humbly agree that their view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds. They can make common cause with those who reject naturalism, like old earth creationists, to establish their most basic beliefs."
The fact that Scripture, although it could be interpreted in terms of a young earth, does not require such an interpretation. There are other possible interpretations in terms of an ancient earth that do not compromise the authority of Scripture.
The fact that we do not know everything. Humility is often seen in the greatest scientists. It is also a Christian virtue" (Lennox, 86-87).
Dr. Lennox shows that a belief in Old Earth Creationism does not necessarily mean that the Old Earth Creationist believes in Neo-Darwinist evolution. Lennox shows that cosmology belief does not demand a biological belief as some Young Earth Creationists believe. Lennox believes in six historical days, but shows the six historical days occurring within the time-frame of a six epoch time frame of an indeterminate time. With Lennox's interpretation, one could adhere to a literalist interpretation of the Bible along with the acceptance of the 11 billion year history that scientific data tends to show.
Lennox also deals with the creation of humanity which he shows as a special act of God. Lennox quotes C.S. Lewis to clear up a discrepancy upon which I have thought intensely. If the universe and earth are old, then why was it that some animals seemed to prey upon other animals and why was there death before humanity entered the scene? Lennox, alluding to Lewis, shows that there is not a discrepancy after all. Scripture shows that in Romans 5:12, Paul refers to human death entering the scene by human sin. However, sin may have been already been present because there was a rebellious person already present...Satan. So according to Lennox's interpretation, sin entered creation by the fall of Satan and sin entered humanity by the choice of Adam and Eve. Therefore, there is no discrepancy after all. It appears from the onset, that Lennox clarifies why there could be death in the natural world before sin entered the human world. This would also explain why God created a special garden to create Adam and Eve. From Lennox's own testimony, he does not give an exhaustive exposition of this issue, but from my perspective, he clarifies a lot of misunderstanding for those who oppose Old Earth Creationism.
If you are open to examine Old Earth Creationism and how creation and science can be blended, then I would highly recommend this book to you.
I conclude this review of Lennox's book with some insights given by Lennox himself.
"So what is the best way forward? There seem to me to be four salient considerations:
The current scientific evidence for an ancient earth.
The honest and admirable admission of prominent young-earth creationists that "recent creationists should humbly agree that their view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds. They can make common cause with those who reject naturalism, like old earth creationists, to establish their most basic beliefs."
The fact that Scripture, although it could be interpreted in terms of a young earth, does not require such an interpretation. There are other possible interpretations in terms of an ancient earth that do not compromise the authority of Scripture.
The fact that we do not know everything. Humility is often seen in the greatest scientists. It is also a Christian virtue" (Lennox, 86-87).
November 2, 2012
This book primarily makes a biblically based case for an old earth, or at least that the Bible does not preclude an old earth. The book begins with a well-developed analogy between the current young-earth/old earth debate and the 17th century fixed earth/moving earth debate. He concludes this portion of the book with a final lesson from the Galileo affair: "The Galileo incident teaches us that we should be humble enough to distinguish between what the Bible says and our interpretations of it. The biblical text might just be more sophisticated than we first imagined, and we might therefore be in danger of using it to support ideas that it never intended to teach. The Bible could be understood to teach that the earth was fixed. But it does not have to be understood that way. At least, Galileo thought so in his day, and history has subsequently proved him right." (p. 35)
Lennox continues the analogy with the fixed-earth controversy: "There we saw that, although Scripture could be understood as teaching that the earth did not move, that was not the only logically possible interpretation. Here we see that, although Scripture could be understood as teaching that the earth is young, it does not have to be interpreted in this way." (p. 53) Along the way, he makes a number of points, including "it is Scripture that is inspired and not my particular understanding of it" and the importance of distinguishing between the facts and how to interpret them.
Lennox has a nice, brief summary of the three main interpretations of the days of Genesis 1: the 24-hour view, the day-age view, and the framework view. He then presents his case for the fiat days view, a variation of the day-age view in which "the six creation days themselves could well have been days of normal length ... in which God acted to create something new, ... spaced out at intervals over the entire period of time that God took to complete his work." He also has a brief discussion of the four different meanings of the Hebrew word yom (day) in Genesis 1 & 2, and the obligatory discussion of death before Adam's sin.
The book has five appendices which cover (1) the relationship of the Genesis account of creation with other Ancient Near East accounts, (2) John Walton's functional interpretation of Genesis (in which he disagrees with Walton's insistence that Genesis 1 has nothing to do with the material origin of the universe), (3) the beginning according to Genesis and science (the Big Bang), (4) the two accounts of creation (Genesis 1 & 2), and (5)a 28-page discussion of his views on theistic evolution. In this discussion, Lennox comments on the versions of theistic evolution described by Francis Collins, Michael Behe, Simon Conway Morris, and Denis Alexander. While he accepts biological evolution, he makes a case for the special creation of Adam and Eve as another intervention (singularity) in history, along with the Big Bang, life from nonlife, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. He winds up by suggesting that, just as science and the Bible have converged on the beginning of the universe, science and the Bible may also converge on the origin of life.
All in all, this is a very worthwhile book, both for non-Christians who has been put off by the young earth creationism of some Christians and for Christians "who are disturbed not only by the controversy but also by the fact that even those who take the Bible seriously do not agree on the interpretation of the creation account."
Lennox continues the analogy with the fixed-earth controversy: "There we saw that, although Scripture could be understood as teaching that the earth did not move, that was not the only logically possible interpretation. Here we see that, although Scripture could be understood as teaching that the earth is young, it does not have to be interpreted in this way." (p. 53) Along the way, he makes a number of points, including "it is Scripture that is inspired and not my particular understanding of it" and the importance of distinguishing between the facts and how to interpret them.
Lennox has a nice, brief summary of the three main interpretations of the days of Genesis 1: the 24-hour view, the day-age view, and the framework view. He then presents his case for the fiat days view, a variation of the day-age view in which "the six creation days themselves could well have been days of normal length ... in which God acted to create something new, ... spaced out at intervals over the entire period of time that God took to complete his work." He also has a brief discussion of the four different meanings of the Hebrew word yom (day) in Genesis 1 & 2, and the obligatory discussion of death before Adam's sin.
The book has five appendices which cover (1) the relationship of the Genesis account of creation with other Ancient Near East accounts, (2) John Walton's functional interpretation of Genesis (in which he disagrees with Walton's insistence that Genesis 1 has nothing to do with the material origin of the universe), (3) the beginning according to Genesis and science (the Big Bang), (4) the two accounts of creation (Genesis 1 & 2), and (5)a 28-page discussion of his views on theistic evolution. In this discussion, Lennox comments on the versions of theistic evolution described by Francis Collins, Michael Behe, Simon Conway Morris, and Denis Alexander. While he accepts biological evolution, he makes a case for the special creation of Adam and Eve as another intervention (singularity) in history, along with the Big Bang, life from nonlife, the Incarnation and the Resurrection. He winds up by suggesting that, just as science and the Bible have converged on the beginning of the universe, science and the Bible may also converge on the origin of life.
All in all, this is a very worthwhile book, both for non-Christians who has been put off by the young earth creationism of some Christians and for Christians "who are disturbed not only by the controversy but also by the fact that even those who take the Bible seriously do not agree on the interpretation of the creation account."
June 22, 2024
About 4.5!
A good short book on the topic - I mostly got what he was getting at, maybe lost me in a little in some of the more science heavy sections. Poses some great questions and definitely provides some great thoughts to debates that have gone on for years - but obviously no book could cover it all 😂
A good short book on the topic - I mostly got what he was getting at, maybe lost me in a little in some of the more science heavy sections. Poses some great questions and definitely provides some great thoughts to debates that have gone on for years - but obviously no book could cover it all 😂
December 29, 2021
“Both Genesis and science say that the universe is geared to supporting human life. But Genesis says more. It says that you, as a human being, bear the image of God. The starry heavens show the glory of God, yes; but they are not made in God’s image. You are. That makes you unique. It gives you incalculable value. The galaxies are unimaginably large compared with you. However, you know that they exist, but they don’t know that you exist. You are more significant, therefore, than a galaxy.”
Seven Days That Divide the World by John C. Lennox sets out to answer those who question the existence of God because of the seven day creation narrative and also contends with the controversy over the interpretation of those seven days within the Christian church. The book attempts to demonstrate to the reader that science and Biblical faith are compatible, and I think it does this brilliantly with logical, compelling narrative in which the Bible is the authority and science has a supporting role. No God of the Gaps here or trivializing the importance of Adam and Eve.
This book was recommended by Alisa Childers on her podcast, #24. It intrigued me because I have been confused by the young earth versus old earth arguments for some time. These arguments have become more concerning to me over the years as they are often used as an excuse not to believe in God. And as a mom I want to be able to help my children navigate these issues, or someone else will.
Honestly, I find young earth arguments difficult to accept. At the same time, seven days of creation makes sense to me. I think it is unwise to completely dismiss science, but it is also unwise to be wise in our own eyes as there is a higher Authority. This book helped me think through the different creation arguments. It closely examines the Biblical text and demonstrates how God is the author of both the Bible and of science. Have I made any decisions about what I believe about the seven days of creation? Yes, I think so, but I have also come to a place where my faith would not be threatened by any new discovery in this area.
I highly recommend this book if you are a scientist, a pastor, a college student, or a mom or a dad. Anyone, really. This book will help you the next time you meet someone who dismisses the Bible as a cute Sunday school story.
Seven Days That Divide the World by John C. Lennox sets out to answer those who question the existence of God because of the seven day creation narrative and also contends with the controversy over the interpretation of those seven days within the Christian church. The book attempts to demonstrate to the reader that science and Biblical faith are compatible, and I think it does this brilliantly with logical, compelling narrative in which the Bible is the authority and science has a supporting role. No God of the Gaps here or trivializing the importance of Adam and Eve.
This book was recommended by Alisa Childers on her podcast, #24. It intrigued me because I have been confused by the young earth versus old earth arguments for some time. These arguments have become more concerning to me over the years as they are often used as an excuse not to believe in God. And as a mom I want to be able to help my children navigate these issues, or someone else will.
Honestly, I find young earth arguments difficult to accept. At the same time, seven days of creation makes sense to me. I think it is unwise to completely dismiss science, but it is also unwise to be wise in our own eyes as there is a higher Authority. This book helped me think through the different creation arguments. It closely examines the Biblical text and demonstrates how God is the author of both the Bible and of science. Have I made any decisions about what I believe about the seven days of creation? Yes, I think so, but I have also come to a place where my faith would not be threatened by any new discovery in this area.
I highly recommend this book if you are a scientist, a pastor, a college student, or a mom or a dad. Anyone, really. This book will help you the next time you meet someone who dismisses the Bible as a cute Sunday school story.
May 25, 2025
By Lennox.
In general a great read. The book makes some interesting points that lead us to more confidence in our Lord and savior. Well worth the time to read.
Not sure this book answers many questions about the days of creation and if they are 24 hrs days or ages but still very good. Most of the books seems to deal more with the relationship of modern science and religion.
On page 100 at the bottom of page says that DNA or the information it contains is not physical. What does he mean by this? Isn’t it made up of chromosomes?
Another key point that comes from the book is that we know so little about the beginning and its timing. This should lead Christians of all folks most of all to be humble. See page 87 top.
Page 101 note the back and forth with a noted physicist. So many things we cannot explain. What is energy? What is consciousness? This too leads me to humility.
Page 110 middle. Note how author points out how we try with our minds to make sense of things that happen to us but cannot without something or someone from outside us. This is an amazing truth.
Page 111 bottom note how author feels about mans responsibility to earth. E.g. (Rev. 11:18b)
Page 116 often used quote: “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty, and in all things, charity.”
The last appendix E is very good and probably some of the best material in the book. It shows some of the weakness of past evolutionary thought and how some modern scientists are admitting it.
In general a great read. The book makes some interesting points that lead us to more confidence in our Lord and savior. Well worth the time to read.
Not sure this book answers many questions about the days of creation and if they are 24 hrs days or ages but still very good. Most of the books seems to deal more with the relationship of modern science and religion.
On page 100 at the bottom of page says that DNA or the information it contains is not physical. What does he mean by this? Isn’t it made up of chromosomes?
Another key point that comes from the book is that we know so little about the beginning and its timing. This should lead Christians of all folks most of all to be humble. See page 87 top.
Page 101 note the back and forth with a noted physicist. So many things we cannot explain. What is energy? What is consciousness? This too leads me to humility.
Page 110 middle. Note how author points out how we try with our minds to make sense of things that happen to us but cannot without something or someone from outside us. This is an amazing truth.
Page 111 bottom note how author feels about mans responsibility to earth. E.g. (Rev. 11:18b)
Page 116 often used quote: “In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty, and in all things, charity.”
The last appendix E is very good and probably some of the best material in the book. It shows some of the weakness of past evolutionary thought and how some modern scientists are admitting it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 332 reviews