A "Literal" Reading of Genesis

[depthdeception]

One of the major problems I have with fundamentalist creationism is the claim that it is a "literal" interpretation of Genesis. Well, watch me deconstruct the idea of "literalism"...

When one reads a text, an interpretation is always required in order to make judgments about the text, and in order to add the contents of the text to one's personal knowledge. However, texts are not self-interpreting. One always has to make value judgments about the meaning of the content, as well as addressing one's presuppositions about how a text is intended by the author to be interpreted. Therefore, in order to obtain a "literal" reading of a text, one must understand not only the content of the text, but also the intention of the author of the text.

Now let's apply this understanding to the Genesis accounts. Many will argue that a "literal" reading of these accounts will necessitate that one arrive at some conclusion including the notion of 6 24-hour periods of creation. Yet is this necessary? Again, it is only a necessary, "literal" reading if one can definitively show that the text was intended by the authors to be understood in keeping with the aforementioned interpretation. However, if the biblical authors do not intend the first two chapters of Genesis to be a "scientific" description of the method and mechanism of creation, but were rather attempting to express a theological idea, I think it is quite plausible to assert (given the established criterion) that a metaphorical/hymnodic reading of the first two chapters of Genesis is actually a literal interpretation of the text.

So then, I believe the first two chapters of Genesis were intended by the authors to be a theological discourse about the power of God and immanant involvment of the divine nature in the cosmos, not a pre-modern scientific description of an event (events) that the writers themselves did not even witness. However, because I feel that this interpretation was that which was actually intended by the authors, I believe it is legitimate for me to say that my metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis accounts is a "literal" interpretation of the text.

What does everyone think of this?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

That reminds me of something else I read on this forum where someone talked about believing humans were created in the "literal, spiritual image of God and not the literal physical image of God."

I guess the question is whether literal language can describe spiritual realities. My own take on it is that the only way the spiritual can be condescended to our level is by using physical language and infusing it with new meaning (in other words, by some form of metaphor).

 

[neverforsaken]

well, i think people have to realize the society and technology of the times the bible was written in. im sure if we were to explain the idea of DNA or the immune system to people only 500 years ago, we would be burned at the stake. So imagine modern day science 3000 years ago. One of the problems athiests have with the bible are that there are many "holes" in it. But i see it as true insight. because of these "holes" the Bible is truely a timeless book. It evolves with the change in civiliation. So in that respect, not only do we evolve and adapt, but so does the Bible. Im always amazed at the wisdom of God.

 

[depthdeception]

I guess the question is whether literal language can describe spiritual realities. My own take on it is that the only way the spiritual can be condescended to our level is by using physical language and infusing it with new meaning (in other words, by some form of metaphor).

Are you a Pannenberg fan? I would tend to agree with you. I do not see why it is so difficult for some to accept the possibility that the Genesis accounts are not meant to be a "scientific" description of what happened in the creation of the universe. In my opinion, to assert that the Genesis accounts of creation are "scientific" or "literal" (as others use the word...) is anachronisitic, for it is applying a modern standard and criterion to a text that was written with not such worldview in mind.

I especially like what you said about metaphor. One has to realize how metaphors function in order to properly understand the Bible. After all, the resurrection accounts are necessarily metaphorical, as what occurred is beyond the pale of human experience, and is therefore impossible to describe in a "scientific" fashion. This does not mean that the resurrection did not happen, but it does help us to understand the limitations of language and experience in describing realities that are beyond language and experience.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Literal and figurative are elements of genre analysis. Since it is apparent from past discussions here this is an impossible idea to get across to some YECists. Evidence is the difference between taking "and God spoke" as an anthropomorphic extended metaphor or a literal voice with molecules in the air vibrating.

But the problem is deeper than genre analysis and that is it involves epistemology as well. The YECists are throughly modern in their insistence that only scientific, historical analysis has an epistemology that is reliable and truthful. This is one idea bundled in the 'literal', common sense, man in the pew, Scottish Common Sense Realism from the 19thC analysis that is the prevailant YECist and Biblical Conservative hermeneutic. Unfortunately ANE cultural analysis of the social-historical-religious matrix surrounding the writing of Gen 1-5 knows nothing of this modern epistemology. Hence the continually loggerheads we see here between those who would insist on a hermeneutic that does justice to the fact that God was not teaching modern geology or astronomy to the ancients but was teaching theology and those that insist that the Scriptures are inerrant with respect to modern science.

But it is at least two distinct problems rolled up into the term literal, the first is genre analysis and the second is a problem of hermeneutics and epistemology. It does no one justice to confuse the two, which appears sometimes to be either stubborness or ignorance on some YECists behalf.

ask yourself?
is God speaking in Gen 1 an anthropomorphic metaphor or does God actually speak so that if there existed a microphone it would have recorded God's voice?

can Gen 1 be true if the order of creation was not in the order of the 6 days? can Gen 1 be true if it is not a newspaper reporters equivalent testimony and is scientifically and historically accurate? If it is literary and not scientific does this decrease the usefulness or the truthfulness of the account?

....

 

[depthdeception]

But it is at least two distinct problems rolled up into the term literal, the first is genre analysis and the second is a problem of hermeneutics and epistemology. It does no one justice to confuse the two.

....

I agree. Thus my post...

 

[cameocat]

If Genesis were to be interpreted literally, then the earth, moon, & sun would have been created on the first day.

 

[depthdeception]

If Genesis were to be interpreted literally, then the earth, moon, & sun would have been created on the first day.

Exactly--otherwise, there would be no purpose in saying "day" and "night," as our experience and measurement of time "revolves" (lame pun...) around the movement of the earth around the sun.

 

[Delta One]

depthdeception,

Either I really missed what you were on about, or that really wasn't well constructed or researched (one or the other)...

Literalism is defined as conforming or limited to the simplest or obvious meaning of a text. As you can see, there is no reliance here on what the authors were trying to convey, but the most obvious meaning. Taking Exodus 20:11 for example, the most obvious meaning is that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh.

Therefore, in order to obtain a "literal" reading of a text, one must understand not only the content of the text, but also the intention of the author of the text.

As shown above this is not entirely correct. If you want to know what the correct interpretation is, then you do; but for a literalist interpretation - it's just the simplest or most obvious meaning of the text...

I'm not convinced that Genesis was meant to be or intended to be a 'scientific' description of creation, rather a historical account from which we can base our science on, e.g. trying to find out how God created everything and the function and processes of the universe.

However, because I feel that this interpretation was that which was actually intended by the authors, I believe it is legitimate for me to say that my metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis accounts is a "literal" interpretation of the text.

As shown above, you are once again incorrect in stating that.

Star Ruby, you stated: If Genesis were to be interpreted literally, then the earth, moon, & sun would have been created on the first day;
and depthconception you stated in reply: Exactly--otherwise, there would be no purpose in saying "day" and "night,"

Actually this 'problem' can be easily answered: all you need for 'day' and 'night' is a light source and a rotating Earth. On the first day of creation, God made light (Genesis 1:3). The phrase 'evening and morning' certianly implies a rotating Earth. Thus, if we have light from one direction, and a spinning Earth, there can be day and night. Where did the light come from? We are not told, but Genesis 1:3 certainly indicates it was a created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on the fourth day to rulethe day He made. Revelation 21:23 tells us that one day the sun will not be needed, as the glory of God will light the heavily city.

It's interesting to contrast the speculations of modern cosmology with the writings of the early church father Theophilus:

'On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, He understood the nonsense of of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the thngs produced on Earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.'

What great words of wisdom!

 

[depthdeception]

depthdeception,
Literalism is defined as conforming or limited to the simplest or obvious meaning of a text. As you can see, there is no reliance here on what the authors were trying to convey, but the most obvious meaning. Taking Exodus 20:11 for example, the most obvious meaning is that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh.

This is interesting, for the defintions of "literalism" that I can find say that something is literal when it is "Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words."
Obviously, it is impossible to conform to the exact or primary meaning of a word or words unless one has determined the intention of the author... Therefore, your criticism is not as solid as you would like to think.

I'm not convinced that Genesis was meant to be or intended to be a 'scientific' description of creation, rather a historical account from which we can base our science on, e.g. trying to find out how God created everything and the function and processes of the universe.

So then, what would you propose is the qualifying difference between "historicism" and a scientific description of creation? If something is going to be a knowledge basis for scientific pursuit, that knowledge base itself must conform to the standards of the scientific method.

As shown above, you are once again incorrect in stating that.

How am I "incorrect" in stating this? You have no more definite access to the intention of the authors than I do.

Actually this 'problem' can be easily answered: all you need for 'day' and 'night' is a light source and a rotating Earth. On the first day of creation, God made light (Genesis 1:3). The phrase 'evening and morning' certianly implies a rotating Earth. Thus, if we have light from one direction, and a spinning Earth, there can be day and night. Where did the light come from? We are not told, but Genesis 1:3 certainly indicates it was a created light to provide day and night until God made the sun on the fourth day to rulethe day He made. Revelation 21:23 tells us that one day the sun will not be needed, as the glory of God will light the heavily city.

WHy would the earth be rotating if there is no sun? The sun's gravitational pull upon th earth is the cause of the earth's rotation! In the scenario which you propose, God creates the universe one way, and then changes it all up a couple days later. Why? This picture presents God as capricious and arbitrary, and gives us a picture a universe that is completely random and meaningless--not a place in which to live that can be understood, explored, etc. Finally, it makes the creation stories look like silly superstitious stories as observation and experience of our universe is diatemetrically opposed to a literalistic (your defiinition) of the Genesis accounts. I think Ockham's razor applies to this situation--what is more likely, that God created the universe in accordance with the laws of the universe that we experience today, or that God created the universe and "made" up the physics as God went along? In my opinion, the first scenario presents a much more rational and winsome view of the creation of the universe which is much more in keeping with the nature of God which is presented in the whole of Scriptures.

[quope]
'On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, He understood the nonsense of of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the thngs produced on Earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.'
[/QUOTE]

I respect this writer quite a bit, but unfortunately he is wrong. The "foolish philsophers who were going to say that the things produced on Earth came from the stars" were actually right--stars are the "incubators" of the elements necessary for the formation of carbon-based lifeforms. We are all made of "stardust." This, however, need not necessitate T's next statement that such a conclusion "sets God aside." One thing you have to realize is the philsophers which T was fighting believed the universe was eternal. Therefore, T's conclusion would have been correct in that scenario. However, very few cosmologists hold to this view of the universe any longer, and there is considerable openness to the possibility of a supernatural explanation that lies behind the ultimate origins of the natural.

 

[gluadys]

Literalism is defined as conforming or limited to the simplest or obvious meaning of a text. As you can see, there is no reliance here on what the authors were trying to convey, but the most obvious meaning.

Emphasis added.

And this is one of the problems with this sort of literalism. It places no reliance on what the author is trying to say, but uses an interpretation that seems "obvious" to a 21st century CE reader.

But why would the real meaning not be what is "obvious" to the author rather than to people living 2000+ years in the future?

For example:

Actually this 'problem' can be easily answered: all you need for 'day' and 'night' is a light source and a rotating Earth.

This is a simple and obvious answer to a person who knows that the earth rotates. But it would not be the simplest and obvious answer to the writer of Genesis who is describing the creation of a flat and motionless earth. To the writer the simplest and obvious meaning is that the light source moves from a position above the earth to a position below the earth and back to a position above the earth and so on.

It's interesting to contrast the speculations of modern cosmology with the writings of the early church father Theophilus:

'On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, He understood the nonsense of of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the thngs produced on Earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it.'

What great words of wisdom!

Words of wisdom indeed. The order of creation is dictated by theology, not scientific accuracy. Would that more modern Christians could grasp that.

 

[neverforsaken]

the thing i dont understand about literal readings is that if it were literal, then that means all the animals came into existance within the same day. there would be cows as well as dinosaurs roaming the earth. think of the poor cows! The bible also says that fish and birds came before land animals, but birds dont appear in the fossil record until after the age of the dinosaurs, which were land animals (well most of them anyway). Those truths have nothing to do with evolutionary theory, yet conflict with the literal reading of genisis.

 

[depthdeception]

Emphasis added.

And this is one of the problems with this sort of literalism. It places no reliance on what the author is trying to say, but uses an interpretation that seems "obvious" to a 21st century CE reader.

AH!! Amen! A voice in the wilderness! Thank you for the support!

This is a simple and obvious answer to a person who knows that the earth rotates. But it would not be the simplest and obvious answer to the writer of Genesis who is describing the creation of a flat and motionless earth. To the writer the simplest and obvious meaning is that the light source moves from a position above the earth to a position below the earth and back to a position above the earth and so on.

When I have confronted various people on this issue, many that I have talked to have resorted to mythological stories about how the ancients were actually more scientifically advanced than humanity today--it's absurd, but it's the only way they can hold together a "literal," scientific reading of the genesis creation accounts.

Words of wisdom indeed. The order of creation is dictated by theology, not scientific accuracy. Would that more modern Christians could grasp that.

Amen to that.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Oops, I missed responding to this:

Are you a Pannenberg fan?

No, I've never heard of him.

 

[depthdeception]

Oops, I missed responding to this:


No, I've never heard of him.

Oh. You should check him out. He is one of the greatest theologians of the 20th century. (Not just my opinion!)

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Okay. Will do.

 

[Didaskomenos]

Does this thread strike anyone else as deja vu? Depthdeception, I started a thread a while back that said something very similar. I was decrying the overusage of the labels literalist vs. non-literalist to mean TE vs. YEC. My point was that I don't argue for a non-literal Genesis, just a non-historical Genesis. The trees were real trees, and the serpent was a real serpent - within the story, not as objective historical narrative. And no, I don't think they were figurative for anything else, i.e. I don't think Genesis is allegory. I'm in favor of interpreting the Bible based upon the genre in which it was written and according to how the original audience would have interpreted it.