When reading Genesis 1, the Creation story, interpretations of the story can generally be classified into three groups:
- Those who dogmatically cling to the story as literal gospel truth despite the science;
- Those who reject the story as a fable or patently false because of the science;
- Those who experience a crisis of faith when they find the word of God is in conflict with known history and become suspect of both.
The reality is, all three positions are flawed because they are interpreting it from a modern literary perspective. What we should be doing is interpreting it from the perspective of the original audience. Just read an article from a magazine published in 1950 and let me know if the vocabulary and social perspective makes you feel a bit uncomfortable. Any piece of literature is immediately limited by the language, figures of speech, culture, and scientific understanding of the author who produced it and the audience to whom it is written.
I often hear the question “should we interpret the bible literally”, as if literal and concrete are synonymous. They are not. The opposite of literal is metaphorical, the opposite of concrete is abstract. Just because something is written with abstract imagery does not make it fictitious. Genesis 1 is abstract not metaphorical. For example, I could say, “I am so hungry I could eat a horse.” I am literally very hungry, but the notion of eating a horse is hyperbole and is an abstract description of my hunger. Ancient writers were concerned about what something did, its abstract function, rather than how it did it. The moon served a function of providing light and this is how it is described. They had no idea of what its actual form was. They had no idea that it was a giant rock 380,000 km away. The reality is, not only did they not know but, they likely did not care. Another important point is that God does not reveal any new science in the bible. He teaches the audience according to their understanding of the world. This means that the bible may have been written for us, but not to us. Consider the following diagram. Don’t be too dazzled by my amazing Microsoft Art artistic skill:
In this diagram, you see how the ancient Israelites perceived the cosmos. The earth is flat with a firmament dividing the water above from the earth beneath. This helps explains why we are told that, during the flood in the time of Moses, water came from above and beneath – but I digress. The lights are strung along the firmament, and above the firmament is the heavenly domain of God. God taught the Israelites by using their understanding of the cosmos. No amount of mental gymnastics will let you escape this fact, so relax. You can stop trying to grasp the leaps of logic that the “literalists” come up with to match the text with the current trends in science. Should it concern us that God uses poor science to teach his gospel? Not at all, He is teaching according to the understanding of his people. He teaches us according to our understanding as well. Can you imagine an ancient Israelite trying to understand the message with early 21st century science, or us trying to understand the science of the 25th century?
Let’s look at each of the days in the creative process:
Day | Event |
1 | Earth is without form and is dark. God said let there be light |
2 | Firmament formed to divide the waters below from the waters above |
3 | Dry land appears, and plants grow |
4 | Lights in the firmament dividing day from night, seasons begin, sun and moon appear |
5 | Animals in the oceans and birds in the sky |
6 | Land animals and finally Adam Eve |
7 | God rests |
Genesis 1 can be taken literally – a true story taught with abstract imagery. Nowhere in the bible does it say God created anything out of nothing. This is conjecture. The bible says ‘in the beginning’ but it does not explain what beginning it is referring to. Furthermore, the word translated as “create” refers to forming things that already exist. If you recall, on day one the earth is already there waiting to be formed. Another point is that earth does not mean planet. The audience for which this book was written had no concept of planet. Their land is flat, so at most we can understand that ‘earth’ refers to the land where they resided a being prepared for them and for God.
In my opinion, Genesis 1
is not talking about the formation of the universe and the development of life on earth. The scholarship suggests that Genesis 1 is literally telling us about the formation of the cosmic temple but using the abstract imagery of the cosmos as Ancient Israel understood them. This is a story of God building his house both in heaven and on earth. His promise that He is with us.
In my next blog, we will examine more about what each day in the creation story may mean.
Hi Grant, a very interesting read and an excellent beginning. I’m looking forward to the next installment. Are you going to, or perhaps I should say, will you please provide references for the comments and thoughts of others that you utilize to establish your position, especially from known scholars and their works? It will greatly substantiate your position and assist in your becoming an established scholar in your own right. Thanks, I’m always interested in what you have to say. =)
Hi Terry,
I certainly will. Since this entry is two part, the second blog will reference sources. A huge challenge to using blogs is that they have to be relatively short so it is difficult to discuss complex issues property. Supporting facts have to be sacrificed to avoid having a 2000 word esoteric academic essay that only people who know more than me would be interested in reading.
Hey there…your minions asked me to chime in…
Agreed that science is not the purpose of Genesis. It is ridiculous to watch people make a book that never intended to explain the minute processes of how God went about doing what he did into some sort of tome for scientific accuracy. Adventures in missing the point are across every religious flavour.
Your statement, however, that “nowhere in the bible does it say God created anything out of nothing”…
I didn’t consult anything other than my own memory banks, but what do you make of the term “ex nihilo”… that literally means “out of nothing.” Is there another interpretation that I am unaware?
Everything I remember, this was a big one for biblicists of my ilk since the fact that the world was created “out of nothing” belied that God came before everything…and yaddah yaddah…that was big for apologists to hammer atheist infidels with…you know.
Anyway…
Chiming in…
David
Hi David,
Thanks for reading. The concept of ‘ex hihilo’ is an extra-biblical doctrine that creates its own set of problems. The assumption is that ‘create’ means to start with nothing but the word itself means to form something that already exists so relying on Genesis 1:1 is a non starter. The other problem is that it assumes that we are the center of the universe as being Gods only creation. It is a carry over, I think, from the notion of the flat earth, then later that the sun revolved around the earth. The more science reveals, the further the bible gets removed from the natural world and gets established as a book of gospel principles. Some reference Hebrews 11:3 arguing that ‘not made of things which do appear’ means they are made from nothing which is too much of a stretch and is completely out of context since ‘things not seen’ has reference to faith which is in thing that are not seen but are true. I don’t think we are to have faith in nothing. I will be posting an entry about this very topic but if you are interested, I will prepare a longer essay on my view and send it your way for some feedback.
Very cool Grant I like Terry am looking forward to blog number 2
Thanks Bob
I enjoyed reading your thoughts Grant. I learned some things I had not understood before. I look forward to your next installment.
Thanks Don.
very nice post, i certainly love this website, keep on it
Thanks.