An interesting view of Genesis 1 and 2

[Vance]

If you follow the link on the bottom, you will go to a site where the author reviews a number of different possible interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2. The Day-Age theory, the Days of Proclamation approach, the possibility that God created everything to LOOK old, he even considers the viewpoint of our own Glenn Morton. Here is the third possibility:
"3. Perhaps the creation account given in Genesis 1 is a literary device used to convey the central truth that God created all the players in the grand scheme of the universe to function together. This viewpoint asserts that we cannot determine any chronological sequence from the "yoms" of "creation week." Howard J. Van Till espouses this view in his 1986 book "The Fourth Day" (page 90):

The days of Genesis 1 are a literary device: they are story elements, not temporal specifications. Their relative lengths are a matter of no significance whatsoever. To waste time worrying about such matters is poor stewardship of our mental energies. Nonsense questions generate only nonsense answers.​

Van Till declares that we will only get nonsense answers if we ask of Genesis 1 questions about physical properties and chronological sequence. "The days of Genesis 1 have nothing to do with the cosmic timetable; they are simply literary devices in the story, not actual temporal intervals directly corresponding to events in cosmic history." (page 91) Any similarity to the scientific chronology determined by astronomy, geology, and biology is purely coincidental. He adds elsewhere that we will only get nonsense answers if we ask of scientific data questions about meaning and purpose.

Of course Van Till, a devout Christian, emphatically believes that God created the heavens and the earth. Those heavens continue to tell the glory of God. Genesis 1's use of "creation week" as a literary device in no way detracts from the central truth that God created it all.

The "literary device" is a remarkably freeing viewpoint. No longer do we have to worry about the apparent discrepancies between Genesis 1 and 2. No longer do we have to ignore the obvious fact that God is still creating the heavens and the earth - new stars are born, and new islands like Surtsey in 1963 continue to rise out of the sea. No longer must we look in natural history for clear divisions between the "yoms", mornings, and evenings of creation week. God's creative activity continues to this day in the earth, the heavens, and in the hearts of every believer.

Instead, we can look in Genesis 1 for the symbolic meaning that surely must be present if the scientific information is not the main story. Conrad Hyers in 1983 described two parallel tracks of creation: on days 1-3 a framework was created, and on days 4-6 that framework was filled."


http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html#The%20Possibilities%20of%20Genesis

In fact, the whole page is good:

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html

 

[YahwehLove]

Of course Van Till, a devout Christian, emphatically believes that God created the heavens and the earth. Those heavens continue to tell the glory of God. Genesis 1's use of "creation week" as a literary device in no way detracts from the central truth that God created it all.

except that Adam was created during that week and was only 930 years old when he died.
if it werent 6 literal days then he should have been quite a bit older.

 

[Vance]

Is that really your response to this entire interpretive approach?

 

[gluadys]

except that Adam was created during that week and was only 930 years old when he died.
if it werent 6 literal days then he should have been quite a bit older.

Yahwehlove: you are trying to put together two incompatible notions. That Genesis 1 is a literal history of creation and that it is a literary presentation of creation.

As a literary presentation of creation, it says nothing about just when Adam was created. So, no, it does not mean he should have been a lot older.

 

[YahwehLove]

Yahwehlove: you are trying to put together two incompatible notions. That Genesis 1 is a literal history of creation and that it is a literary presentation of creation.

As a literary presentation of creation, it says nothing about just when Adam was created. So, no, it does not mean he should have been a lot older.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good. And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth. And God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. And God blessed them. And God said to them, Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heavens, and all animals that move upon the earth. And God said, Behold! I have given you every herb seeding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree seeding seed; to you it shall be for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to every creeper on the earth which has in it a living soul every green plant is for food; and it was so. And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good. . And the evening and the morning were the sixth day
(Gen 1:24-31)

and the week wasnt even over yet

 

[YahwehLove]

Is that really your response to this entire interpretive approach?

not at all.
just thought Id get the ball rolllng for you

 

[gluadys]

and the week wasnt even over yet

So when was a sixth day that is part of a story, but not part of history?

 

[YahwehLove]

So when was a sixth day that is part of a story, but not part of history?

ah, you lost me

Adam (man) was created on the 6th day.
Genesis 2 provides clear evidence that this is the first man who was later called ''Adam'' ( heb. ''man'') and that he lived thru the 7th day and then for 930 years.

The days of creation cannot be long ages which would leave only a gap type thoery to contend with.

 

[Vance]

No, YL, what I was looking for was your analysis of this interpretation, not just a "but what about . . ." which applies generally to any version other than your own, and again relies on the Scripture being literal.

 

[gluadys]

ah, you lost me

Adam (man) was created on the 6th day.
Genesis 2 provides clear evidence that this is the first man who was later called ''Adam'' ( heb. ''man'') and that he lived thru the 7th day and then for 930 years.

The days of creation cannot be long ages which would leave only a gap type thoery to contend with.

I am not talking about days being long ages. I am talking about days in a story. For example, if I write a story about a week's adventures with my imaginary playmate and say that we had pancakes for breakfast on the 6th day of the week, could you point to the calendar and tell me which day that was? Could you tell me if it was last month or 10 years ago or 40 years ago?

 

[Vance]

Actually, that is not even the best example, because in your story, even though it is a story, you are still referring to your activities taking place over six literal days. I think the poet/tree example gets the point across a bit better. The poet can use the tree to be symbolic for a family, or a society, etc, but when he is saying tree, even though it is symbolic, he is using it in the real, arboreal sense. He is not referring to some other form of tree, like the "tree" layout of folders in Windows, or some other form of "tree".

He is speaking of a real, arboreal tree, the way God is speaking of standard, 24 hour days. But in both cases, the word or phrase is not meant to be taken ultimately AS a tree or a day, but as symbolic for something else. The poet is not talking about a tree at all, even though he is using that word over and over again. He is talking about a family, or society, or whatever. No matter how much detail he goes into about the tree, or how often he repeats the tree motif, he is STILL not really talking about a tree. Repetition and details do nothing at all to indicate that a real tree is the subject of his poem.

I don't see this as a very difficult concept. But rather than deal with this possibility and show why it can not be the case, all YL can do is yell "but it SAYS six days!". I could respond "but the poem SAYS a tree!" but I have concluded that this is a waste of time.

 

[MLML]

Do you believe Genesis is really an imaginary story told? Can I ask what do you with the parts that say God says? Do you think that when the Bible says God is speaking it might deserve your attention and belief?

 

[gluadys]

Do you believe Genesis is really an imaginary story told? Can I ask what do you with the parts that say God says? Do you think that when the Bible says God is speaking it might deserve your attention and belief?

Yes, I think that when God tells us stories they are very much worth our attention and belief.

Story-telling is one of the oldest forms of teaching going back well before writing of any kind. We are by nature story-tellers. That is how we make sense of the world.

Jesus was also a story teller.

We are made in the image of God, in God's likeness. Perhaps our penchant for stories is part of that.

Jesus in the very incarnation of God and tells us that everything he does is in imitation of the Father. And Jesus tells stories as the most important way he teaches.

So why this prejudice that I see so often against stories in the bible? If God thinks story-telling is the best way to teach, if Jesus practices story-telling as the best way to teach, and if humans practically since they acquired language preserved and transmitted their knowledge through stories, it makes no sense at all to devalue story as a biblical mode of teaching.

 

[Vance]

No, it is not JUST an IMAGINARY story. What Gluadys said. It is a presentation of God's Holy Word to us, providing us with His eternal truths. I believe that in Genesis 1 and 2, God is telling us what is important about His creative work, as I have set out elsewhere. There is no way that He could provide us a complete history or a scientific treatise, so instead He presented the essential truths in the form of a figurative literary style, something similar to what is described above in the OP. When God speaks to us through Psalms, or Song of Solomon, or Job, all of which are generally deemed as non-literal presentations of God's messages to us, do we just dismiss them as "imaginary stories"? Or do we seek for what God is telling us in these verses by analyzing the figurative message?

Nearly every book is told in different styles and using different literary techniques. Some books, like Genesis, actually have different literary styles within the same book. The problem most YEC's have is that they equate figurative or symbolic presentations of God's Word as somehow less valid or "real" as historic narrative. I am not sure why this is the case. At the time the various Genesis texts were written, narrative history was not a common literary style, and I am not sure I can think of a single example in all the ancient literature. So, why would we expect God, speaking through the Hebrews, to use a literary style that none of them were familiar with and which would not be common for thousands of years? In fact, it is only in modern times that accurate narrative history has become a standard way of writing about the past. But now that it has we view all OTHER forms of writing about the past as suspect, or less reliable since we only see the accurate telling of historical details as a possible goal for writing about our past. This has not always been the case, so this is simply a matter of modern cultural bias.

I think God provides His wonderful truths about Creation in a wonderfully effective way. In fact, if you are reading it for something it was not intended, those messages might not get the attention they deserve due to the focus on proving "historicity" when this was not ever a goal of the text.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm reposting this post here because if the YECs read it there's just a cat's chance in Hell that they will start to understand what we are actually saying; the constant equating of "story" with "not true" and other naive nonsense implies that at the moment they don't:

I'm not convinced the problem is semantic. Finding a better word will not solve the problem.

The problem is in how we view the concept of truth.

IME, YECs cannot actually conceive of something being true without the details being literally true.

You can offer up Jesus' parables as examples, but apparently they're different because the text says "This is a parable". Unless it has that disclaimer, then its truth claims are literal.

Ironically, this way of thinking is a product of the very same scientific modernism that is so decried by the fundamentalist. Atheism and fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin - extreme liberal theology is a third side to the coin - metaphorical coins can have an arbitary number of sides. All see the claims of the Bible as valid only if they are historically true. The only difference is in the acceptance or otherwise of the historicity of the claims. It's the same mindset that makes appalling fallacies of equivocation such as:

The Bible = The Word

The Word = Jesus

Therefore The Bible = Jesus.

mistakenly applying mathematical laws to imagery, metaphor and semantics.

It is not surprising, therefore, that post-modernism (not the extreme "everything is true" version) is viewed with intense suspicion in the fundamentalist camp. It strikes at the very heart of this approach to examining truth claims. But, ironically, in doing so it to a certain extent rediscovers the pre-modern worldview, under which Christianity spent its formative centuries. Is it any surprise, therefore, that the supporting statements of theistic evolution come either from the modern age, from people who can see a non scientifically modern approach to truth, or from the church fathers, such as Augustine, who lived in a pre-modern age?

Because of the primacy of historical truth in this modernist fundamentalist mindset, any other truth is seen at best as second rate. Hence we have in recent threads the use of the term "downgrade" to refer to non-historical readings of Genesis. "Casting doubt" is another popular phrase from the creationist side. Until we can break through this particular world view, I think we will make little progress in even having our viewpoint properly understood, much less actually convincing the other side.

I think there is a second problem, which builds directly upon the first. Because historical is seen as the "best" - if not the only - way of being true, it follows that anything that contradicts the historicity of Genesis 1-3 is seen as to an extent contradicting Genesis 1-3 itself. This, allied with a lack of understanding of the strength, comprehensiveness, and significance of the scientific evidence for evolution, means that the creationist reduces the issue in his mind as "do I believe the Bible, or the scientists?". To him, the answer is obvious.

But this is a phantom choice. It isn't the choice that is being made. Because the creationist machine (and any look at some of the more ludicrous attempts to disprove evolution on both the CO and open Evolution fora will demonstrate that this is the case) does its best to insulate the rank and file from real exposure to the strength of the scientific case, the creationist doesn't realise that he is not against "what the scientists say", but he is actually up against reality itself, as surely as if he were trying to deny heliocentricity, atomic theory or the electron transport chain. Then the choice becomes rather different, and yet it is the same for the scientist as it is for the theologian - "Do I re-examine my position in order to match reality, or do I not?"

It seems to me that stated that way, the choice is also clear. And this is why the creationist machine works so hard not to prove creationism, but rather to misrepresent, discredit and generally obfuscate the strength of the scientific evidence.

Given this, there has to be two aspects to our approach. One is to counter the misinformation and obfuscation of the creationist machine - and by the by also exposing the dishonesty inherent within it - and at the same time to work heavily at confronting a modernist, scientific worldview with regard to theological truth that cannot cope with non-historical truth being on a theologically sound footing.

 

[Vance]

Karl, I don't think they heard you.

 

[California Tim]

Man, this gets tiring. So anyone who takes a literal stance on the creation account must take every word in the Bible literally. What utter nonsense. It's a "STRAWMAN" argument in the 1st degree. NO ONE ----- NOT ONE YEC'ist will ever cling to an 'every-word-is-literal" theology. The Bible contains BOTH literal and figurative accounts thoughout. What is missing from some here is apparently the ability to "rightly divide" that word. Your argument is the equivalent of me claiming all TE'ists believe that Christ himself was figurative and not a historical person since you claim the whole Bible is metaphorical from the very beginning (equally nonsensical). So do us all a favor, drop your strawman and pick up the issue next time you want to debate whether or not Genesis 1 is literal or figurative. Present your case without the diversionary discourse on the mental capacity of the opponent for a change and then we'll see what the Bible says about itself.

 

[gluadys]

Man, this gets tiring. So anyone who takes a literal stance on the creation account must take every word in the Bible literally. What utter nonsense. It's a "STRAWMAN" argument in the 1st degree. NO ONE ----- NOT ONE YEC'ist will ever cling to an 'every-word-is-literal" theology.

You're right. There are many passages that YECists do not take literally. Even the ones who claim to take every passage literally. Apparently you do not make that claim, but some do.


And right, again. There are many passages TEs do take literally. So we both agree that the bible contains "BOTH literal and figurative accounts thoughout."

What is missing from some here is apparently the ability to "rightly divide" that word.

And that is the nub of the issue. Who is to judge who is "rightly dividing" the word?

Where we both agree a passage is literal, no problem.
Where we both agree a passage is figurative, no problem.

Where one of us says "literal" and one of us says "figurative" can we not agree to disagree? For who can say which of us is right?

The only thing that bugs me is when people put a literal interpretation on a pedestal and imply that a figurative interpretation is somehow inferior or equivalent to dismissing the passage in question.

 

[Vance]

Right, Gluadys, and the problem is that many YEC's just say we are wrong for taking Genesis 1 and 2 figuratively, period, without any analysis as to WHY this text is one that should be read literally. They will go on and on about "not trusting God", "not taking God at His word", etc, etc, as if this is what a person is doing when they read figuratively . . . except when THEY read figuratively.

So, we need to move past the figurative interpretation=not believing, and get to the analysis of the how and why THIS text falls into one category or the other.

And, no, Tim, we are not setting up a strawman. The YEC's generally are the ones simply yelling "you must read it literally" and we point out that even they don't do this all the time. So, it is the TE's pointing out that the YEC's are not reading solely literally.

 

[bolinstephen]

Interesting, very Interesting