Most YEC's here would agree that were it not for their presumption that the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood were meant to be read as literal historical narrative, the evidence from the natural world would be compelling enough to conclude the universe and the earth were old, and that God created over a long period of time. Said another way around, it is this literalist presumption which overrides what they would otherwise believe regarding our past and God's method and timing of creation.
So, that presumption is at the core of this issue, and we must look to see whether that presumption is justified. First, it must be said that for most YEC's this seems not to be some sort of default position, a starting point, from which they would move if the evidence was sufficient. It is not a "rebuttable presumption", but their insistance on literalism is a conclusive presumption.
Now, why? Why would strict literal historical narrative be the conclusive presumption? Let's consider some of the factors involved in this issue:
1. We know that the Bible is not a single book written all at one time by a single human author. God inspired dozens of humans over a couple thousand years. It is a collection of inspired texts, with a wide variety of literary styles and genres. God inspired the message, but seemed to let each author use his own "voice" and style in the telling. We have poetry, parable, allegory, prophecy, symbology, typology, letters, epic stories and, yes, some actual history. We do not read Acts the same way we read Revelations, Song of Solomon or even Job, although we recognize that God is telling us TRUTH through all of these styles. So, with all of these varieties of literary styles, with all of these methods for conveying TRUTH, we should be willing to objectively look at these early Genesis accounts and earnestly seek to determine which literary style they are meant to be. Why have a conclusive presumption that it must be a particular one of these? In fact, why even start with a default that it should be a particular genre unless proven otherwise?
2. I have shown elsewhere that the ancient Israelites, at the time these stories were first told, and then first written down, would not have viewed them as strict literal historical narrative. That is simply NOT how they told about their past. Yes, they would have considered them true and valid and believable, but not at all have insisted that they must be factually accurate. I know this is difficult for us to get our modern minds around, but in such matters they did not have our modern biases. Again, I have provided evidence for this in the past, and can do so again if requested.
3. Our modern minds tend to only truly value stories about the past to the extent they are considered historically accurate and literal. If the stories about the past are told in some other literary style, which does NOT attempt to convey strict historical details, we consider it unreliable, untrue and basically invalid. It is JUST a story, it can not be a valid or valuable method of telling us about things that happened in the past. It is something LESS than "true history". Oddly, we can accept a presentation of actual, literal FUTURE events in VERY non-literal terms, as in Revelation. But we have much more difficulty accepting a presentation of actual, literal PAST events in such figurative, symbolic, typological language.
4. The fact that God using such a literary style would cause "confusion" (given His knowledge that we would develop this modern mindset) is no true argument whatsoever. If God had chosen to make Scripture crystal clear so that there would be no disputes over proper interpretation, we would not have hundreds of different denominations and interpretive approaches. Obviously God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to allow the Scriptures to be written in a way that is subject to differing, but sincerely held, beliefs by devout, Bible-believing Christians. This is not evidence of a failure of communication on God's part elsewhere in Scripture, and it should not be seen so in Genesis. Why didn't God inspire the text to be written in a way that all would agree? I can not speak for the rest of Scripture, but for the Genesis accounts, I would argue that HE DID! Given our disputes over the HOW and WHEN, it is amazing that almost all Christians seem to agree on the WHO and WHY. We seem to agree on every theological and doctrinal issue in these Genesis accounts that is necessary for salvation. And isn't it these that are the TRUE message of these accounts?
I would suggest that we consider the texts of the early Genesis presentations in light of the culture, mindset and literary styles of those who first told them and wrote them down. I would suggest that we be willing to let God tell us about these past events using whatever literary style He chose (among the myriad available). I would suggest that we consider whether these presentations are meant to tell us about the WHO and WHY rather than the WHEN and HOW.
I would suggest that we come to these texts WITHOUT presumptions, other than that presumption that it is telling us truth, however that truth is told. I make this call because there is a danger that our attention will be drawn away from the essential message of these accounts by a focus on the historicity of the details. As Augustine said:
"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth. That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).
and again when he says:
"37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of Genesis here], different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."
So, that presumption is at the core of this issue, and we must look to see whether that presumption is justified. First, it must be said that for most YEC's this seems not to be some sort of default position, a starting point, from which they would move if the evidence was sufficient. It is not a "rebuttable presumption", but their insistance on literalism is a conclusive presumption.
Now, why? Why would strict literal historical narrative be the conclusive presumption? Let's consider some of the factors involved in this issue:
1. We know that the Bible is not a single book written all at one time by a single human author. God inspired dozens of humans over a couple thousand years. It is a collection of inspired texts, with a wide variety of literary styles and genres. God inspired the message, but seemed to let each author use his own "voice" and style in the telling. We have poetry, parable, allegory, prophecy, symbology, typology, letters, epic stories and, yes, some actual history. We do not read Acts the same way we read Revelations, Song of Solomon or even Job, although we recognize that God is telling us TRUTH through all of these styles. So, with all of these varieties of literary styles, with all of these methods for conveying TRUTH, we should be willing to objectively look at these early Genesis accounts and earnestly seek to determine which literary style they are meant to be. Why have a conclusive presumption that it must be a particular one of these? In fact, why even start with a default that it should be a particular genre unless proven otherwise?
2. I have shown elsewhere that the ancient Israelites, at the time these stories were first told, and then first written down, would not have viewed them as strict literal historical narrative. That is simply NOT how they told about their past. Yes, they would have considered them true and valid and believable, but not at all have insisted that they must be factually accurate. I know this is difficult for us to get our modern minds around, but in such matters they did not have our modern biases. Again, I have provided evidence for this in the past, and can do so again if requested.
3. Our modern minds tend to only truly value stories about the past to the extent they are considered historically accurate and literal. If the stories about the past are told in some other literary style, which does NOT attempt to convey strict historical details, we consider it unreliable, untrue and basically invalid. It is JUST a story, it can not be a valid or valuable method of telling us about things that happened in the past. It is something LESS than "true history". Oddly, we can accept a presentation of actual, literal FUTURE events in VERY non-literal terms, as in Revelation. But we have much more difficulty accepting a presentation of actual, literal PAST events in such figurative, symbolic, typological language.
4. The fact that God using such a literary style would cause "confusion" (given His knowledge that we would develop this modern mindset) is no true argument whatsoever. If God had chosen to make Scripture crystal clear so that there would be no disputes over proper interpretation, we would not have hundreds of different denominations and interpretive approaches. Obviously God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to allow the Scriptures to be written in a way that is subject to differing, but sincerely held, beliefs by devout, Bible-believing Christians. This is not evidence of a failure of communication on God's part elsewhere in Scripture, and it should not be seen so in Genesis. Why didn't God inspire the text to be written in a way that all would agree? I can not speak for the rest of Scripture, but for the Genesis accounts, I would argue that HE DID! Given our disputes over the HOW and WHEN, it is amazing that almost all Christians seem to agree on the WHO and WHY. We seem to agree on every theological and doctrinal issue in these Genesis accounts that is necessary for salvation. And isn't it these that are the TRUE message of these accounts?
I would suggest that we consider the texts of the early Genesis presentations in light of the culture, mindset and literary styles of those who first told them and wrote them down. I would suggest that we be willing to let God tell us about these past events using whatever literary style He chose (among the myriad available). I would suggest that we consider whether these presentations are meant to tell us about the WHO and WHY rather than the WHEN and HOW.
I would suggest that we come to these texts WITHOUT presumptions, other than that presumption that it is telling us truth, however that truth is told. I make this call because there is a danger that our attention will be drawn away from the essential message of these accounts by a focus on the historicity of the details. As Augustine said:
"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth. That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).
and again when he says:
"37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of Genesis here], different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."
It is the Holy Spirit that leads to understanding of the scripture, not history, not popular opinion and not science.
