Non-literal intepretations of Genesis

[Bulldog]

Hello,

I have come to the realizatian that after years as a Biblical literalist and Young Earth creation that (for numerous reasons, many not really related to science) I am a theistic evolutionist.

Unfortunatly, I am not very educated on the subject. Could somone please explain to me the most prominent (and most probable) non-literal interpretations of the Genesis creation story?

God Bless

 

[herev]

Hello,

I have come to the realizatian that after years as a Biblical literalist and Young Earth creation that (for numerous reasons, many not really related to science) I am a theistic evolutionist.

Unfortunatly, I am not very educated on the subject. Could somone please explain to me the most prominent (and most probable) non-literal interpretations of the Genesis creation story?

God Bless

Greetings, Bulldog!!!
I'm not sure what you are looking for, so I am not sure how to answer. To read it non-literally by itself simply means that it is not intended to state fact. But there are many truths that are in there without it being literal or factual.
For example (and there are many for many people). We find that God created the earth and everything in it---as such, he is the author and authority of our lives. God pronounced everything Good as He created, so we know that we have within us and within creation good things that are gifts to us from God.
We know that due to free will (IMHO) we are not living in the state of paradise that God intended. We know that God has blessed sex between a husband and a wife and that he thinks it is good for them to be together, each completing the other. We know that we have a responsibility to tend God's creation--a heavy responsibility that comes from our status as rulers over it (stewards for His creation). and again, the list goes on and on
Additionally, we don't have a TE club or rules to swear by. Many take the entire Adam and Eve story as allegorical, while others like myself, believe in a literal Adam and Eve.
Ask questions, ignore the insults, and I'm sure others will help you in any way possible
God Bless
Tommy

 

[Vance]

I am not a Catholic, but what the Pope says is a good start:

"Cosmogony itself speaks to us of the origins of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth, it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The sacred book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and makeup of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven."

I think that what God is telling us in the first part of Genesis is the following:

God created everything. Absolutely everything.
He did so deliberately and with purpose and in an organized manner.
He is in control of all things and has a plan for all things.
Man was created in God's image and was meant to have a special relationship with God, but Man's own selfishness and desire causes him to lose that communion. (thus the need for redemption and His later redemptive gift of His Son).

All this is told in powerful and dynamic poetry and symbolism. In the midst of this presentation of His creative power, He also provides many of the basic lessons which will be played out throughout Scripture: God's love, His desire for our good, the dangers of temptation and of Satan, the consequences of sin being spiritual separation from Him (ie "death"), etc, etc. All this is TRUTH, even if not meant as literal history.

Also, just because some of Scripture is meant to be read non-literally, that does not mean that all of it is, of course. There is a lot of straight history there as well. Most Jewish and Christian scholars (other than the literalists) think that everything from Abraham forward is based on historical events. But even then, remember that the Bible is not there as a history lesson, but a LIFE lesson, and is God's holy message to us and should be read as such, regardless of historicity.

Some of the literalists would like you be fearful of the "slippery slope", saying "hey, if one part of the Bible isn't true, then maybe none of it is, then where would we be?!" This is silly, of course, since the Bible IS true, even where it is not literal. And every message is the Bible is the true Word of God and can be fully trusted as a manual for both our daily living and our path to Heaven.

Just read the Bible with an open heart to the promptings of the Spirit, and He will guide you to God's message in each passage, and worry not about literalism.

 

[gluadys]

Hello,

I have come to the realizatian that after years as a Biblical literalist and Young Earth creation that (for numerous reasons, many not really related to science) I am a theistic evolutionist.

Unfortunatly, I am not very educated on the subject. Could somone please explain to me the most prominent (and most probable) non-literal interpretations of the Genesis creation story?

God Bless

HI, bulldog.

One common theory is that the creation story in Genesis 1:1-2:4a (there are two stories) was written to counter the impact of Babylonian mythology, especially during the Babylonian captivity.

You see, the OT indicates that the Israelites were not strict monotheists during most of their early history. They believed Yahweh was *their* God, but they also believed the gods of other nations were real gods. (Otherwise they wouldn't have committed idolatry by worshipping them.)

Likely, they also shared the belief of their neighbours that when nations were in conflict, the gods of the nations also fought each other, and helped the armies of their nation. So it was generally thought that a nation was strong because its gods were strong, and if a nation was weak, it meant their gods were weak and couldn't defend them.

The author of Gen. 1 is trying to show the Jewish captives that their defeat at the hand of the Babylonians does not mean their God is weak. Instead their God is the only real God and is stronger than all the Babylonian gods put together.

How does he do this? When you compare the Genesis story with the Babylonian story, you see that each day shows God creating something that one of the Babylonian gods was supposed to be in charge of---in the order in which they appear in the Babylonian myth! Day two, for example, deals with the separation of the waters and the creation of the firmament: something that the Babylonians attributed to Tiamat and her consort. Day three shows God creating vegetation--something which the Babylonians attributed to Marduk, Tiamat's son and the chief of the Babylonian gods. And so on.

Another thing is that in the Babylonian myth, humans were created to be slaves of the gods. But in the Genesis story, humans are given dominion over all the other animals. Which means humans rule the Babylonian gods!!!!!

The other cue that the story was never meant to be a straightforward chronology is the poetic way it is arranged. Especially the six creative days. They are set out in two panels of three days each. In the first panel, each day establishes a framework. In the second panel each part of the first panel is given inhabitants. So the Day and Night of Day One are filled with sun, moon and stars on Day four; the firmament and waters of day two are filled with fish, sea creatures and flying creatures on day 5 and the land created on day 3 is filled with animals and humans on day 6. (This is the only way I know of to make sense of vegetation appearing before the sun.)

This is only one possible way to deal with Genesis 1. There are probably many others. Mostly the important thing is that God created everything, and created us in a special way to be "images" of God in the world.

Here is another person's perspective. Carl Drews is an evangelical Christian and theistic evolutionist.

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

An interesting little book you might like to check out is Darwin's Forgotten Defenders by David Livingstone. It is about 19th century evangelical theologians who were active in science and/or supportive of Darwin. It gives a good cross-section of how Christians of the time coped with this new idea of evolution in a sympathetic way. It's published by Eerdmans and available from Amazon.