Author, Simon.
Published, April 14, 2008.
The Holy Bible begins with a creation narrative; A creator God creating and being creative. He
creates the earth, the land, the creatures and the flora. He creates light. Finally, God creates the crowning glory of his creation; man and woman. The narrative proceeds, with Adam and Eve eventually disobeying God by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, after being tempted by a serpent. They are then kicked out of paradise (the Garden of Eden) and made to work the land for food and toil for their survival. Essentially God places a curse on mankind because of what Adam and Eve had done.
Here, I pose a question or two: Do we take the narrative as told in the bible literally? Do we take it, word for word, to be true? These are important questions to Christian and sceptic alike. If the creation story is not taken literally, does Christianity fall apart? Personally I don’t think it does. I am, however, willing to be convinced otherwise!
Rob Bell, in his book Velvet Elvis, uses a brick wall as a metaphor for Christianity and its doctrine. If we remove a brick, the whole wall doesn’t collapse. Bell, in his example, suggests that the doctrine (or brick) of the Virgin Birth of Christ could be removed and the wall wouldn’t collapse. I disagree with him on this specific example of Virgin Birth, and agree with Mark Driscoll; “If you don’t have the Virgin Birth, you don’t have Jesus.” So, there are bricks which, if removed, would undermine the integrity of the wall so much that it would collapse. Literal 7 day creation, literal Adam and Eve, literal Garden of Eden; in my opinion, these bricks could be removed and it would not undermine the Christian faith so much that it would topple and be left unrecognisable
Firstly, let’s look at 7-day creation. We are told that God created the world in 6 days, and rested on the seventh. I don’t believe that this needs to be taken literally. God could have very well created the world with a blink of his divine eye, or he could have created the world slowly and methodically. He might have taken his time and done it in 7 years. In fact, in one sense, I like the picture of God taking his time over creation. I know, as a writer of music, how pleasurable it can be to create without time constraints. I enjoy being able to take my time over each bar of music, or each counter-melody. I also enjoy the picture of our all-powerful Father who is capable of creating this most intricate piece of work, the universe, in a split-second. Perhaps a happy medium is 6 x 24 hours. Either way, the fact remains that, according to the book of Genesis, he created it.
Literal Adam and Eve; I’m less sure about this one. Again, I think it possible that this is a metaphor for a larger event. What we know for sure is that man and woman were created; created in the image of God. They then sinned against God; they committed an original sin, and cursed all of their kind that followed with separation from God.
Literal Garden, also, is questionable too. The picture of Eden we get is that it is a place with walls or boundaries; Adam and Eve are ‘thrown out’ of Eden, as it were. It is possible, too, that Eden is the perfect creation as a whole, and that, when Adam and Eve sinned, they ruined the creation, like they ruined their relationship with their creator. The crowning glory of the creation sins, then the rest of creation is rendered imperfect also. What we know for sure, from Genesis, is that the Garden of Eden was perfect and beautiful, before man sinned. In fact, all of creation was good. God looked at it, and noted that it was good.
To justify my thoughts on the matter of literal interpretation of the creation story, I must delve further. I don’t believe that I am undermining Christianity or the doctrine of the infallibility of scripture. Some may suggest that, if I can’t take the creation story as written, then how can I justify interpreting the rest of the Bible in another, more literal way. I believe that everything in the Bible should be read the way the author intended it to be read. I believe the Bible is God’s inspired word. The Bible we have it today is the Bible we are meant to have; the scriptures are precisely the scriptures God intended. It contains historical accounts, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature and correspondence. Reading the initial chapters of Genesis, one must realise that the writer could not have been there to see the events they describe. Adam did not write Genesis. In fact, the creation story would have been passed down orally, from generation to generation. Other parts of Genesis, like Noah and the Great Flood, and the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, I think, are much more certain to be an accurate description of events that truly occurred. However, I don’t think that this necessarily applies to the creation story.
The story reads like a mythological tale, a piece of folk-lore, or even a piece of poetry. Tim Keller, in his book The Reason for God, notes that any reader can see that “the historical narrative should be read as history and that the poetic imagery is to be read metaphorically.” Keller then goes on to compare Genesis 1 and 2 with two other pairs of biblical passages (Judges 4 and 5, and Exodus 14 and 15). Keller’s point is that “in each couplet, one chapter describes a historical event and the other is a song or poem about the theological meaning of the event.” The couplet in Judges contains a historical account, in chapter 4, then a song about the event, in Chapter 5. Deborah’s song about the battle described in chapter 4 has lines about stars in heaven coming down to fight for the Israelites. Readers would understand that the song is to be taken metaphorically. Genesis 1 has the earmarks of a piece of poetry, where as chapter 2 sounds much more like a historical account.
Genesis may be a folk-tale, a Jewish mythology explaining the story of creation. What we, as Christians or non-Christians, take from the creation story in Genesis is important. We get doctrines of Creator God, imago dei, original sin and the resulting fallen condition of man. We understand that God was entirely in control of his creation, and man was created as steward and given dominion over it. We also get our understanding of evil, and its presence in the world, from Genesis. I am probably missing some central truths, here, but I think you see my point. Even if the creation story is simply that: a story, then God has still supplied us with a way to understand what he wants us to understand. He wants us to understand that he is a creative and interactive God. He wants us to understand that we have wronged him and that we need saving. He wants us to understand our role as stewards of the earth. I could go on. My point is that God has communicated central truths to us about him and cosmic reality; whether it is through a literal historical account or not, I don’t think it matters: if God has chosen to communicate these truths through an oral tradition which was then written down, that doesn’t change a thing. God remains the sovereign, just, loving, eternal Father that he was and is, and always will be.
Soli deo Gloria.
If we don’t take the text literally; that means we read it either metaphorically, or allegorically - or ‘take-it’ not at all.
I find it easier to take it literally. After all what would a ‘metaphorical seven day creation’ look like?
Either way it moves me to wonder, and smile.
I forgot to mention, I do not disagree - per se.
I think I explained what a metaphorical seven day creation looks like. It looks like we can’t know what it looks like. All we know is what is in the Bible. My thoughts center around whether or not we should take this particular part of the Bible literally. God has revealed to us what he wants us to know, either literally or metaphorically.
“Either way it moves me to wonder, and smile.” - Indeed.
I agree, the Christian faith does not fall apart either way. Salvation doesn’t necessitate for a literal understanding of a seven-day creation.
I may clarify though, on my other out-of-context comment; if we can’t know what [seven-day creation] looks like, then we can’t say categorically that it isn’t to be taken literall either - this is the joy of wonder in it!
Personally I am not sure what I believe to be the true story of creation. But I do have a great interest in the words that the creator chose to present to me.
Dennis lamourex has some interesting stuff about different views including the poetry of Gen 1
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/
Oh and another thing. I think Gen 1 also teaches the original goodness of creation including humans
Thanks David. I shall check out the Iamourex stuff. Looks interesting.
Also, important point there about the ‘original goodness of creation, including humans’. Important to remember. I overlooked that in this piece. Cheers.
The issue is not how God could have created the world, but how He told us that He created it. If you really do believe that “everything in the Bible should be read the way the author intended it to be read”, then you must be a YEC.
How do you know the creation account had to have been “passed down orally”? No doubt Adam could write so he may even be the author of the early chapters. In any case, whether it was Moses or someone earlier, God could still have inspired the words just as he did with many other parts of the bible where there was no human witness - Job for example.
If claiming the early chapters of Genesis are not as “accurate” as the latter ones is not an undermining of the inerrancy of Scripture, then I don’t know what is.
Hi Ewan.
Personally, I don’t have so much of a problem with believing in a six day creation, for, if there is a God who created it, it would be no problem for Him to create the world in six days. But I am not sure that it matters. I used to be of the opinion that it mattered immensely. As you pointed out, if we cannot take the first book of the Bible literally then what can we take as accurate or literal? Yet, I think we are missing the point. What I have found useful is the distinction between ‘mythos’ and ‘logos’. Mythos being of the function to convey meaning, and logos being of the function to explain, describe or convey knowledge. It seems to me that whilst the creation story contained in Genesis is written in a specific language that really implied ’six literal days’, it doesn’t automatically mean that the story itself is factual. Just as in any work of fiction there are literal 24 hour periods. I don’t understand how the account in Genesis cannot be taken for the meaning it gives, rather than a narrow conception of how exactly the world began. This seems to fall in line with Jewish culture and their use of storytelling to convey spiritual truths.
And, sorry, I’m not sure what a YEC is?
What’s your take of the book of Job? Actual events or not?
Hi Ewan,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your view, although I think it is rather narrow. I don’t dismiss 6-day creation; my point is that it doesn’t matter whether it is 6-day, YEC(Youth Earth Creationism), Historic Creationism, Gap-Theory, and what-not.
I’m not sure why you’re so sure that “Adam could write”. I agree that God must have inspired the words written in Genesis, as I believe wholeheartedly in the authority and inerrency of the Bible. However, I do not think that having a stance other than YEC compromises this.
Hi Simon,
I don’t consider the YEC view to be “narrow” - I consider it to be faithful to Scripture. If Scripture did allow room to move on this issue then it would indeed be narrow to insist on the YEC view.
Another point is that I see no compelling reason to compromise (that is to depart from the straightforward understanding) anyway. There is not one empirical fact that contradicts an approximately 6000 year old earth and universe. So in the absence of contrary proof why do so many Christians even want to doubt the Genesis account?
There is no direct biblical evidence to say if Adam could write or not, but it is clear that Adam was created with language and speech that unlike us he did not have to learn. Therefore it is reasonable to assume he also had the ability to write. Even if not he could easily have developed writing during the centuries of his life. So it is almost a given that he was capable of writing so could have authored something about the creation account that may have been still in existence when Moses compiled Genesis. See here.
Adam,
I was referring to those events in Job that occurred before God’s throne where there was no human witness. I have no reason to doubt the events of Job.
Why is it not possible to apply your reasoning about the Genesis Creation account to other parts of the Bible? - the virgin birth for example?
Ewan,
In saying that “There is not one empirical fact that contradicts an approximately 6000 year old earth and universe”, I take it you are disregarding much of the scientific evidence that says differently.
Simon,
You need to differentiate between empirical facts and scientific evidence. They are not the same thing. Evidence needs interpretation - facts speak for themselves.
There is not one fact or one piece of evidence that I disregard, but I do certainly differ from the evolutionists/old-earthers when it comes to the interpretations put on that evidence when forming a hypothesis about past events.
Simon,
It is important to understand that ‘age’ is a substance that cannot be directly measured, and methods used to determine the age of an object will by necessity always involve assumptions.
In any debate about the age of the earth, Christians must understand this because a person’s axioms will always determine how they interpret the evidence. See here.