Modern scholarship largely agrees that Genesis ... at least the first 11 chapters or so ... is myth ... at best. Possibly just wrong, but, at the very least, not literally true. This view only became mainstream in the modern age of science. Early church fathers (such as Philo of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine) questioned a six-day Creation, but their skepticism (not of God's creation, but of a literal 6-day creation) wasn't about the days, but about the fact that God could (and possibly did) create everything instantaneously. Not a longer time period based on science, but a shorter time period based on an Omnipotent God. The modern view started in the 17th century when modern scholars began re-examining Scripture in light of Science. (I capitalize "Science" here because the idea is that science is more reliable than God's word in interpreting truth, making "science" more like God than God's word is.) So they would read Genesis and see the time and story and say, "But ... that's not what Science is telling us," and reinterpret Scripture through that lens. (Let's be fair here. They weren't reinterpreting Scripture; they were challenging a literal reading of Scripture.)
The argument is that Genesis 1-11 is ... and at this point, the wording gets murky ... mythical, "mytho-history," "etiological myth," maybe "legend" or "saga." What makes those first 11 chapters not literal? They say that it's basically the shift to Abraham. Okay, that's simplistic. The first 11 chapters affect all humans everywhere. The subsequent chapters are about a family ... Abraham and his offspring. Creation, Adam, Noah, the Flood ... all these are singular and universal. Chapter 12 is family narrative. And, to be fair, "myth" in this use of the term is not "a made up story" like we'd understand it in other uses. It's more of a sacred narrative that presents a worldview through symbolic storytelling. This version of "myth" has the Bible telling stories in narrative, symbolic form that are intended to be understood in a nonliteral expression of truth. (For instance, "I'm hungry" would convey a literal statement while "I'm starving" would convey a nonliteral version with an exaggerated meaning for effect.) So calling Genesis 1-11 "myth" is not intended to convey that it's false; just that it's not literal. Jesus, for instance, told parables. We all understand those are not to be understood in a strictly literal sense, but as allegory. Prophetic texts like Daniel, Ezekiel, or Revelation include descriptions that are considered symbolic, not literal. This concept of nonliteral texts in Scripture isn't new or unreasonable.
Still, for millennia, the vast majority of followers of the God of the Bible and His Son have understood Genesis to be a literal representation of the beginning of life on Earth. Why? Why do they do that even in the face of Science? Well, it's not simply out of blind devotion or tradition. There are reasons. For instance, God uses the six-day creation account as a reason for the Sabbath (Exo 20:11). If you read Genesis just casually, you won't sense a change in delivery or language that indicates a change in presentation between Genesis 1-11 and the rest of the book. The unity of Genesis seems to support a literal interpretation of the first part as much as the second part. Luke traces Jesus's lineage to Adam (Luke 3:38). Paul uses Adam in his defense of "the gospel I preached to you" (1 Cor 15:1, 22) and argues that Adam and Moses were equally historical (Rom 5:14). He explains that "Adam was formed first, then Eve" as part of his explanation of why women shouldn't be in charge of men in church (1 Tim 2:13-14). Jude refers to Enoch and Adam as literal figures (Jude 1:14). Jesus and Paul both quote Genesis 2:24 as actual truth (Matt 19:5; Eph 5:31). In textual analysis, the chronological sequence ("first day," "second day," etc.) appears as historical prose rather than mere imagery. It uses ordinary language and repetitive structure ("and God said ... and it was so") like typical historical prose would. The author of the Genesis account used "the evening and the morning" as time-markers. Metaphor wouldn't have needed this kind of literal time marking. Further, a literal account supports both later Scriptural texts (as I've indicated) as well as basic theological concepts like "Original Sin" and God's Sovereignty over all. Add to this the weight of millennia of adherents who held to this view from the beginning and up to this day (understood through the lens of Jesus's claim that the Spirit would lead us into all truth) and you begin to see a large argument against a nonliteral understanding of Genesis 1-11.
I'm not solving the question for you. I'm laying out the two views and their reasons. Today, the primary reason for throwing out Genesis 1-11 as literal is a presupposition of the superiority of Science over a literal understanding. That's obviously a problem ... if a literal understanding is actually the truth. And when the "mythical" view starts erasing obvious truths from the Genesis account (like the claim that God made humans as male and female or that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman), it ceases to be a simple difference of an approach. You can't call such claims "mythical" by explaining "they don't mean anything like what they say" and still be embracing Scripture. But not all who oppose the literal understanding oppose the truth contained in Genesis 1-11, so we need to carefully examine the texts and the reasons for not taking them literally ... or taking them literally. Is it ... Science on one hand or tradition on the other? Are we pursuing a real understanding of God's word or are we defending a perception we prefer or have acquired? It's not a minor question and it isn't trivial. Let's be careful about minimalizing Scripture, but also about minimalizing genuinely honest interpretations that disagree with our own simply because they disagree. We need to consider God, His word, and His message over our own preferences and opinions, and consider the Holy Spirit rather than our own questionable understanding.
I have to wonder how much of my position is bias and how much is being alive in Christ. I look at the Genesis account and the universe around me, and they seem to line up. To me, there is no disagreement. But to others, for some reason they see something that I simply don't. I hear people say, "There is no evidence for a global flood." Yet I see evidences for it all over the place, from petrified forests, to fossils, to peat bogs, to vast oil reserves, to the Grand Canyon, to the continents. I also shudder at the implications of Genesis not being literal, because now you have death and destruction entering the universe before sin. You have a God incapable of explaining how He created everything in an honest and clear way. The only way I can see that Genesis is mythological is if you agree that it was written by men who were not given any true insight into what happened and made it up, and if it was by Inspiration, God told a fable so badly that we have taken it to be true. I don't know that anyone ever believed the Iliad to be a historical narrative. Nobody ever believed the story of Zeus and the Titans to have really taken place. Yet, for 4000 years, Genesis has been believed to have been historical narrative. Either the Spirit failed to teach the truth to God's people, or He didn't, and we've seen clearly what God intended us to see.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don’t have a problem accepting Genesis 1-11 as literal accounts--for all the reasons you gave and also because I--a believer in the supernatural--don’t see the impossibility of it being so. It makes sense to me that, as intelligent and reasoning creatures, we would need to have foundational information regarding the origins of our world and ourselves in order to know and trust God going forward from there (precept upon precept); therefore, I do not see why God would not make all that clear enough to us but instead would leave us with allegory or otherwise ambiguous information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the good people at Answers in Genesis that if Genesis 1-11 is not viewed as literal truth, then the rest of the Bible--on which we base our entire current and future hope--would be equally questionable and untrustworthy--as well as contradictory.
I love both God’s Word and science (lower-case “s”). (One might think I would embrace Christian Science, but that’s neither Christian nor science, as it happens.) I don’t believe that the Bible and science conflict, when properly known and understood. Like David, I have heard the false claim that there is no evidence of a global flood; in reality, Creationist scientists have assembled much evidence--some of it presented in these books in my personal library:
--Flood By Design: Receding Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface by Michael Oard
--Biblical Geology 101 by Michael Oard and Robert Carter
--How Noah’s Flood Shaped Our Earth by Michael Oard and John Reed
--Guide to Creation by Institute for Creation Research
As for me, I've written before that, from I've seen of the world and creation, I don't have enough faith to believe in Evolution as a reasonable. That simply makes no sense.
ReplyDeleteThat is my conclusion as well, of course. However, proponents of Evolution would say the same thing about our view--that it is not reasonable but a part of the blind faith to which fundamentalist believers in God cling; they would deem Creationists gullible “knuckle draggers,” adherents to a well-refuted quasi-science, etc. Both sides assert it is a matter of indoctrination, in alignment with one’s worldview. In my high school days, I accepted Evolution as (supposed) proven science (since that was what was taught in public school), but it struck me as odd even then that this (supposed) unequivocally true science was virtually unknown just 150 years earlier. Seriously, how did intelligent and advanced human beings remain clueless about life on earth for so long?? When I embraced a biblical faith and Genesis 1, I understood why Evolution didn’t explain things very well--because it is false. Part of “the myth of the myth of Genesis.”
DeleteAt least with Genesis, we don't have to cling to the logical fallacy that the universe is self-created.
DeleteYou are right, David; the “Big Bang” theory is 100% science fiction--yet a special, supernatural Creation event is deemed to be only legends and folklore. The “theory of Evolution” is built entirely upon illogical presumptions and unproven speculation--yet is presented by secular scientists as indisputable fact.
DeleteI recently saw this very fitting quote, which relates to both the supernatural Incarnation and special creation of the universe: “Christians believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Materialists believe in the virgin birth of the cosmos. Choose your miracle.” (Attributed to evangelist Glen Scrivener.)
I also have no problem believing and all powerful God could indeed create all things in whatever manner of His liking. The problem with a literal understanding falls on the supernatural. As we know, no "sophisticated" person believes in the supernatural. Ironically, they're reduced to a "science of the gaps" position to keep themselves from giving in to supernatural possibilities.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is that at present, there is no way to know how it all came about, and something akin to faith is required for any possibility. The difference is that their faith is in themselves, while mine is in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The problem I have is the belief that "When Science makes a claim, it trumps the Bible every time." It's a prior commitment ... to science rather than the God who created science.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. It’s a commitment to the humanist worldview. Those who don’t believe in God must accept Science for their truth (regardless of how dubious it is); they have no other option.
Delete