Literal or mythical interpretation of Genesis

[Mallon]

Did you catch the program on BBC recently 'Did Darwin Kill God?' It gives a really good overview of the history of interpretation of Genesis in the church and the relationship between Christianity and science down through the ages. You can still catch it on YouTube YouTube - Did Darwin Kill God? (1 of 6) It is in six 10min clips.

I think it is worth pointing out that while you do get people who take Genesis literally, long before modern geology and evolution you have really important scripture scholars and theologians like Origen, Augustine Anslem and Aquinas who realised from the text of Genesis itself that the account was not meant to be taken literally. Even in the bible itself, the days of Genesis are not taken literally, look at Psalm 90 or Hebrew 3&4.

Great series of videos, Assyrian. Very informative. I can't help but roll my eyes when I hear YECs insist that the Genesis creation accounts were always interpreted literally in light of the history covered here. They would have us dismiss science; they would have us dismiss history. I can't help but feel that God never intended for us to use such big brains so little.

 

[tansy]

I agree. Besides it kind of raises two questions:

1) Weren't the city planners expecting they'd get deliveries of cargo? Wouldn't the gates have been built large enough

Haha..fair point - mind you, even today city planners don't always get it right!

2) Isn't the meaning ultimately pretty much the same - if you have cargo and have to unload it, you'd have been better not having it to begin with. Travel light through this life.

Yes,,in the end, the points the same, whether Jesus meant needles or gates

.

 

[tansy]

I think there are two factors at work here, there are our own human limitations, the fact that God's ways are far higher than ours, his thoughts higher than our thoughts, and until we meet him face to face, though we learn his way, until we meet him face to face we will always see through a glass darkly. On the other hand we have the Spirit of God, and his Word is living and active. I have heard too many sermons where the speaker messes up the the exegesis of the text or massacres the Greek, yet speaks the wisdom and grace of God right into my heart. God's word is bigger than our mistakes. I have heard creationists preaching form Genesis and as long as they are preaching scripture rather than creation science I have been blessed. God's word cuts deeper than our misunderstandings.

Yes, that's true.....it's probably best if one allows the Holy Spirit to interpret as He wishes and reach someone's heart.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, that's true.....it's probably best if one allows the Holy Spirit to interpret as He wishes and reach someone's heart.

I think it's equally important to remember that the Bible is just as open to interpretive error as the scientific evidence. Many fundamentalists don't like to admit the fallible human element in biblical interpretation.

 

[tansy]

I think it's equally important to remember that the Bible is just as open to interpretive error as the scientific evidence. Many fundamentalists don't like to admit the fallible human element in biblical interpretation.

Yes, true....if even biblical scholars and theologians have differences of opinion, what chance does the ordinary bod in the street have?! :o

I mean the the overall message of the Bible is reasonably clear, but it's the individual bits which cause most difficulty. However, I think a lot of the small detail in the Bible is there for a reason, or helps with our understanding and interpretation.
For example, there's a bit in one of the Gospels (cant remember the details), where it says that they all sat down on the green grass. Well, that always puzzled me...why didnt they say simply that they sat down on the grass.? Then one day I read in a book that rhere was significance to the grass being green...maybe only that it pointed to a paerticular period when that would be so, but anyhow it meant that it made something else more clear....sorry, just dont remember now. But the point is that i don't think one can ignore details in Scripture - so Genesis I and 2 I have always found fascinating, and think that there is a lot more significance to all that;s in there than we may realise.

 

[gluadys]

Yes, true....if even biblical scholars and theologians have differences of opinion, what chance does the ordinary bod in the street have?! :o

I mean the the overall message of the Bible is reasonably clear, but it's the individual bits which cause most difficulty. However, I think a lot of the small detail in the Bible is there for a reason, or helps with our understanding and interpretation.
For example, there's a bit in one of the Gospels (cant remember the details), where it says that they all sat down on the green grass. Well, that always puzzled me...why didnt they say simply that they sat down on the grass.? Then one day I read in a book that rhere was significance to the grass being green...maybe only that it pointed to a paerticular period when that would be so, but anyhow it meant that it made something else more clear....sorry, just dont remember now. But the point is that i don't think one can ignore details in Scripture - so Genesis I and 2 I have always found fascinating, and think that there is a lot more significance to all that;s in there than we may realise.

What many of the ancient church fathers thought was that the significance of such details was in their allegorical meanings. Allegory was the principal way of interpreting scripture for about the first 1500 years of the Church's existence. However, they also didn't make the distinction moderns make about choosing whether the allegorical or literal meaning was true. They often accepted both as true. But they tended to think that whether or not the literal meaning was true, the allegorical meaning was more important.

 

[tansy]

What many of the ancient church fathers thought was that the significance of such details was in their allegorical meanings. Allegory was the principal way of interpreting scripture for about the first 1500 years of the Church's existence. However, they also didn't make the distinction moderns make about choosing whether the allegorical or literal meaning was true. They often accepted both as true. But they tended to think that whether or not the literal meaning was true, the allegorical meaning was more important.

Oh right..I see.

 

[shernren]

Regarding Genesis those closest to the original languages and time quite definitely interpreted it as a literal account. The only reason we really question is that the rise of modern scientific theories relating to the age of the Earth and the processes by which life developed into its present state.

And in the blue corner we have Origen!

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil masticating what was taken from the tree?

And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.

De Principiis 4.1.16

 

[Assyrian]

Or one could reject macroevolution as being an unprovable hypothesis about things that only God can know about. The evidence is degraded, incomplete and misread. Highly gifted professional scientists apply advanced techniques in a guessing game which carries no more than the authority of speculation.

Science doesn't work by proving hypotheses but by testing them and rejecting the ones that don't measure up, not by rejecting the ones you don't like and claiming they are 'unprovable'. I'm sure you could reject all science on that basis and go and live in a straw hut.

Regarding Genesis those closest to the original languages and time quite definitely interpreted it as a literal account. The only reason we really question is that the rise of modern scientific theories relating to the age of the Earth and the processes by which life developed into its present state.

Who exactly are these people closest to the original languages who definitely interpreted it literally? It is odd how you go from claiming evolution is an unprovable hypothesis to making wild and unsubstantiatable claims about how people closes to original languages interpreted it.

The nearest we get to knowing how people closest to the original language interpreted it, is to look at how these passages in Genesis were interpreted by people the early parts of the bible. But generally they ignored these passages. The only passages I can think of are Psalm 90 where Moses discusses the creation and tells us God's days are not the same as our. The Psalm seems to be an allegorical reading of the early chapters of Genesis, returning man to the dust, sweeping them away in a flood.

There is an interesting allegorical reading of the creation of Adam in Gen 6 describing the reason for the flood. It draws on the language of the creation of Adam, saying God was sorry he created 'the man' (ha'adm the same term used in Gen 2) on the earth and would blot out the man from the face of the land. Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." Of course if you read Genesis literally, Adam was already dead when the flood came. But this passages reads the creation of Adam as an allegorical picture of God creating the human race, so that when flood came God was wiping Adam out from the land.

Psalm 104 is interesting too, it follows the order of Genesis 1 days, but reads them as if they were a framework to describe creation rather than a chonological timetable, so when God separates the waters from the land, he provides springs in the valleys for the wild beasts and donkeys, vs 10&11. God causes grass to grow for the livestock and birds build their nests in the trees 14-17. God creates the sun and moon and when the sun sets the beasts of the forest come out to creep around 19-23.

There is an interesting comment by Eliphaz in Job 15:7 Are you the first man (Adam) who was born? Or were you brought forth before the hills? Even though he is talking about the first man, Eliphaz still seems to think Adam was born. Of course Eliphaz isn't giving us an inspired interpretation of the Genesis creation account, unlike Genesis 6 or Psalm 90, but we are looking her at how people close to the original language interpreted Genesis.

The flood account described a global flood which wiped all but Noah and his family and the subsequent table of the nations refers to these ancestors as the progenitors of the nations that spread across the world.

Given that not one knew the earth was a globe, or that anything existed more than a couple of countries ways, let alone the existence of the Americas or Australia, how could the writers be describing a global flood and why would the people closest to the language interpret it that way?

Also there is a level of dishonesty in many TEs in their reading of the Genesis 1 to 10 chapters. They will accept a literal truth like God created everything , that he created out of nothing but not that he did it in 6 days or that there was an historical Adam and Eve from whom all mankind are descended.

It think you are getting mixed up over the word literal. 'Literal' tells us about the way things are described, whether the description is plainly factual or figurative and metaphorical. When you talk of "a literal truth like God created everything", it means the statement "God created everything" is both literal and true. But that has nothing to do with the description in of the creation Genesis being literal. There is nothing inconsistent or dishonest with seeing Genesis as a figurative description of something that really is true. That is how figurative descriptions work.

Having said all the above there is poetry interwoven with facts in this account. I find the straight forward interpretation of something is usually the safest however. If on judgment day God turns round and says hey I was only joking in Genesis then I am going to need to rethink my entire sense of humour methinks.

Has anyone here suggested Genesis is a joke? Jesus might ask if you every heard of a thing called a parable...

 

[mindlight]

Great series of videos, Assyrian. Very informative. I can't help but roll my eyes when I hear YECs insist that the Genesis creation accounts were always interpreted literally in light of the history covered here. They would have us dismiss science; they would have us dismiss history. I can't help but feel that God never intended for us to use such big brains so little.

The list of historical evidences presented in this documentary were quite weak actually and the socalled Christian experts referred came to some very controversial conclusions of dubious authority.

Philo- Had Platos view about creation not a Christian one. Allegorised in the conclusions of Stoic and Greek philosophy into the scriptures.

Augustine did not understand the Hebrew which is why he could impose his framework theory onto the text and why he could postulate a theory of instant creation which does not square with the rest of scripture e.g. Exodus 20s Sabbath commandments endorsement of 6 day creation. Meanwhile the church and the Jews were using calendars that dated creation at several thousand years past.

Origen was in the Alexandria school and hiis views were rejected by the school of Antioch. Also he had 15 anathemas pronounced against him by the fifth ecumenical council. Again his theory of creation was influenced by pagan philosophies

Combining the Stoic doctrine of a universe without beginning with the Biblical doctrine of the beginning and the end of the world, he conceived of the visible world as the stages of an eternal cosmic process

Origen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mallon]

Again his theory of creation was influenced by pagan philosophieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen#The_Logos_doctrine_and_cosmology

How can you tell?

 

[tansy]

Thanks everybody for your responses...I can see that there's always been srgument about Genesis...right from way back, not just in the last two or three hundred years.

Well, maybe no-one has ALL the answers...just have to let the Holy Spirit work in people whatever ours or their preconceptions or misundestandings - He seems to find ways...and seeing there are believers in both camps, maybe, after all it's not too important.

 

[MattLangley]

Genesis was a written text by man, there is no need to elevate it beyond it's reality (it was in fact written by the hand of man and as a text long ago). You can hold it to be sacred in "status" but there is no need to hold it to be sacred in "source." It is the writtings of the Ancient Israelites and it is a creation myth. It is not unlike (and in fact quite like) many other myths of ancient times, even up to and including the story of Noah. It may be a myth but there are a lot of truths in it, we do not need to learn science from those who lived thousands of years ago, but we can learn other non-factual truths, such as are relationship with God, the imagery used, just like in other creation myths.

 

[tansy]

Genesis was a written text by man, there is no need to elevate it beyond it's reality (it was in fact written by the hand of man and as a text long ago). You can hold it to be sacred in "status" but there is no need to hold it to be sacred in "source." It is the writtings of the Ancient Israelites and it is a creation myth. It is not unlike (and in fact quite like) many other myths of ancient times, even up to and including the story of Noah. It may be a myth but there are a lot of truths in it, we do not need to learn science from those who lived thousands of years ago, but we can learn other non-factual truths, such as are relationship with God, the imagery used, just like in other creation myths.

I have to say that I'm beginning to wish it wasnt included in Scripture, as it seems to be so difficult to figure out which bits are true in it....I'm pretty certain I wouldnt understand it at all, if others hadnt pointed out the "truths" in it....but how do i know which version of truth is correct...I've only got theologians word for it (whether creationist or evolutionist). It's hard to approach it without all the preconceived stuff.
It seems to be basic or set the framework for the rest of the Bible, but then, if it's merely allegorical, or myth... how do we know that God really
DID create....why did the writers go into all the detail of creation....why couldnt they have just said "God created everything....mankind disobeyed Him, thta's why we're now in dire straits" - it makes no sense to me that they go in to such detail about everything, in that way. Or maybe I just cant get into that mindset.
If i was trying to explain things to my kids, and was using a story to help explain, I would say that something was like, or it was as if, or imagine this...and i would ensure that they knew it was just an illustration of something real.
As it is, I can't figure out what's real, and what's not real in the Creation story. Maybe it'ds not true at all that man disobeyed God etc...maybe that's just a story too. And so on, I think I'm actually getting quite confused.

Ok.....so which bits of Gen 1 (and maybe 2), do you consider NOT myth? And how do we know that the Biblical creation story is the one we should go by, and not the creation stories of other cultures?

 

[metherion]

One thing I think a lot of people need to wrap their heads around is thinking that if it's not literal it's not 'true'.

Eg

as it seems to be so difficult to figure out which bits are true in it.

If it's not literally true, it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I think once people get their heads around that it'll become a lot easier.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

but then, if it's merely allegorical, or myth... how do we know that God really
DID create....why did the writers go into all the detail of creation....why couldnt they have just said "God created everything....mankind disobeyed Him, thta's why we're now in dire straits" - it makes no sense to me that they go in to such detail about everything, in that way. Or maybe I just cant get into that mindset.

As metherion said, the first thing needed to get into the mindset is to jettison the idea that something is only true if it is literal. Putting the word "merely" in front of "allegory or myth" suggests that allegory and myth are not to be taken seriously. That idea would have astonished most ancient and medieval theologians.

When the biblical writers chose their insights in the form of allegory or myth, they didn't intend to be writing children's stories, or something of little importance. They understood that allegory and mythical meanings were just as important as literal meanings, and just as true.

The details don't lose importance or true meaning just because they are not literal.

One of the popular non-literal ways to understand Genesis 1 that still gives a great deal of importance to the details is the Framework Interpretation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

Interestingly, some people consider the Framework Interpretation to be literal and some consider it non-literal. It actually has elements of both.

 

[radlad72]

God told Moses what to write and Moses wrote it. Why would God want to cause confusion. Do you think He would have used the word for 'day' (as in 24 hour period) to describe it if is wan't true? Is it entirely impossible for God to have done what is said in Genesis? If so then we are putting limitations on God.

Compromise is very bad theology as the Bible bits used in TE beliefs and progressive creationists tend to be put on the back-burner.

You only have to go forward to Moses at Sinai when he received the 10 commandments. The 4th one tells us that in 6 days the world was created and everything in it. Do we doubt the hand of God Himself? This is a little dangerous ground.

 

[gluadys]

God told Moses what to write and Moses wrote it. Why would God want to cause confusion. Do you think He would have used the word for 'day' (as in 24 hour period) to describe it if is wan't true? Is it entirely impossible for God to have done what is said in Genesis? If so then we are putting limitations on God.

Compromise is very bad theology as the Bible bits used in TE beliefs and progressive creationists tend to be put on the back-burner.

You only have to go forward to Moses at Sinai when he received the 10 commandments. The 4th one tells us that in 6 days the world was created and everything in it. Do we doubt the hand of God Himself? This is a little dangerous ground.

Actually, I think it says one has a very low opinion of human capacities to think people are too stupid to understand non-literal language. Even children delight in word-play and imaginative stories and use them to learn.

I remember one day when my husband came home in a grumpy mood and my daughter,not yet two, who could barely string two words together yet, gave her comment. "Daddy--Oscar" (as in Sesame Street). If a two-year-old can understand and create a metaphor, I hardly think they need be confusing to adults.

 

[crawfish]

Why would God want to cause confusion.

If God didn't want to cause confusion, we'd have the Holy Pamphlet rather than the Holy Bible. It is a long, deep, complex book and to try and make it simple is to discredit it.

 

[MattLangley]

I have to say that I'm beginning to wish it wasnt included in Scripture, as it seems to be so difficult to figure out which bits are true in it....I'm pretty certain I wouldnt understand it at all, if others hadnt pointed out the "truths" in it....but how do i know which version of truth is correct...I've only got theologians word for it (whether creationist or evolutionist). It's hard to approach it without all the preconceived stuff.
It seems to be basic or set the framework for the rest of the Bible, but then, if it's merely allegorical, or myth... how do we know that God really
DID create....why did the writers go into all the detail of creation....why couldnt they have just said "God created everything....mankind disobeyed Him, thta's why we're now in dire straits" - it makes no sense to me that they go in to such detail about everything, in that way. Or maybe I just cant get into that mindset.
If i was trying to explain things to my kids, and was using a story to help explain, I would say that something was like, or it was as if, or imagine this...and i would ensure that they knew it was just an illustration of something real.
As it is, I can't figure out what's real, and what's not real in the Creation story. Maybe it'ds not true at all that man disobeyed God etc...maybe that's just a story too. And so on, I think I'm actually getting quite confused.

Ok.....so which bits of Gen 1 (and maybe 2), do you consider NOT myth? And how do we know that the Biblical creation story is the one we should go by, and not the creation stories of other cultures?

I can completely relate I think everyone who starts to question and establish their own set of beliefs and not just a set of acceptances runs into this. At least those of us who are raised to believe something must be "factual" to be "true". Metherion hits on a good point.

I would highly recommend the book "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" by Marcus Borg. I think you would really enjoy it.

He gives a very strong argument for things being true even if not factual. He also points out the distinction between what people traditionally believed vs. what people believe now. People used to believe this was how we were created, but "believing" didn't mean disregarding the massive amount of evidence that points towards this not being the case. They had no reason to not believe it as "literal"... basically they didn't have to disregard common sense to believe something. That's what christians in the modern day must do to believe it as literal. Disregard everything else in God's creation... that doesn't make any sense, people didn't use to have to do this.

It's also important to realize that the Bible is a compilation of texts written by many different authors (most we don't know for sure) over a long period of time, though it was compiled at a much later point than the originals were written. There are two different creation accounts in Genesis, both with a different order, with a different purpose, and with a very different style. Scholars are almost certain they were written by different people at different points in time.

Facing the reality of these things doesn't diminish the truth it can hold. The best example is Jesus. He taught primarily in parables. These were non-factual examples that still held truth. Such is much of the Bible and we should take it as such. What do these stories mean in context... so what does Genesis mean to the Ancient Israelites, what are they trying to explain in these stories? They aren't trying to explain anything about science, they are trying to share a truth about their relationship with God and how important it is to them. They are explaining it in a Creation story that represents how powerful and important they thought God was.