Is Genesis Narrative or Metaphor?

[DMcFadden]

I am reluctant to teach anything in Genesis as "actual historical incident," since these stories were handed down word-of-mouth for hundreds of years before Moses (or somebody) wrote them in the Torah.

Today I was left slack jawed by reading the aforementioned statement in a Baptist message board. When my mediating profs in college and seminary talked about Genesis, they scandalized me when they often spoke of the historical difficulties with "SOME" of the passages. Have we come so far that we disbelieve that ANY of it corresponds to an "actual historical incident"???

Yikes!

No wonder the "Answers in Genesis" folks have had nearly 200,000 visitors to their Creation Museum in the first three months of its operation. If the Doctors of the church are so sceptical of their primary text book, no wonder the laity are craving not credulity but creditable faith in the Bible as the Word of God.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I wonder how these people would respond when they come to the Book of Jonah? They will probably do it something like this.

"Jonah wasn't actually swallowed by a fish, for the fish is allegorical. The fish represents being in the rut of our sin and disobedience. Jonah's initial disobedience led to him being swallowed up by his sinful actions. It was only after he repented that he became free from his sins, hence God used the metaphor of the fish spewing up Jonah, to represent Jonah breaking free of his stronghold"

 

[JBaldwin]

Yikes! If Genesis is not historically accurate, then we should just throw out the rest of Scripture. Maybe that's the intention of those who refuse to accept the truths revealed in Genesis.

Incidentally, I spoke just this evening to a college student who is struggling with doubts due to the mockery of the book of Genesis by one of his professors. I'm not surprised, however. If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

 

[DMcFadden]

Slippery,

Actually my OT profs in seminary explained that the nature of Jonah was of the genre of parable. They argued that the first two chapters corresponded to the last two in a tight literary structure, betraying a "clear" literary device rather than an historical narrative. In their minds, the point was to contrast the jingoistic nationalism of "Jonah" with the universal and inclusive love of God.

No thanks! Personally, when preaching the book, I found some of the older commentaries and expositions to be far richer and more useful than the contemporary stuff. You know, books that actually believe that Jonah was real.

 

[weinhold]

Opinions are earned, and I admit that I have not done enough research into Genesis to merit any real opinion at all. I would like, however, to offer a few highly provisional comments regarding my approach to the creation narrative found in Genesis.

The relatively recent obsession with historical accuracy in Genesis among evangelicals is needless and ultimately unhelpful. If 19th century criticism sabotaged scripture by revealing historical inaccuracies, attempting the opposite seems merely to engage in the same decreasingly interesting exercise and perpetuate the paradigmatic method of approaching Genesis in terms of its history. In my estimation, the problem evangelicals face is not historical precision but the decline of our imaginative faculties, which results from our subordination of "story" as an inferior version of "history." I hope I bring no offense by citing an example of such subordination in this very thread:

If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

Just stories? The implication is that stories must have the support of a historical event, which, I suppose is true in some senses. Homer wrote of Troy's fall; Dante included historical figures in The Commedia; and Shakespeare's first works were history plays. None of these (or authors like them), however, restricted themselves to historical precision as the their guiding light, and yet their stories reverberate in our culture to this day. How could this be? As Wendell Berry writes in Standing By Words, "We are speaking where we stand, and we shall stand afterwards in the presence of what we have said." Shakespeare and Homer and Dante knew that, and I think the author of Genesis knew that, too. He knew the strange puissance of stories, and so his central purpose was to employ Genesis didactically, as a way of telling God's people, "This is where you come from. This is who you are," and not as a factual chronicle.

I can't prove that last part, of course. I was not there when Moses or whoever it was wrote Genesis, and I didn't ask him whether his account was factual. I doubt he would have known what I meant anyway. Neither was I (or any human being) present at the historical event of creation, making it seem rather silly to demand historical accuracy of Genesis. I think that's part of it; I think Genesis is a story that is supposed to be surrounded by mystery. A friend illumined that point for me in a recent conversation. He said that historically accurate knowledge of creation would be like a detailed account of one's own conception. It's a mystery that, if stripped naked, becomes repulsive.

So I hope you, my reader, will not consider these remarks in defense of stories too finicky. And I certainly hope that nobody reads these statements as hostile toward the historical profession. Historical approaches to scripture are important. Very important. In certain cases, such as the historicity of the resurrection, the event means everything. But I think it a false dilemma to pit historical precision against storytelling, and I think it is a mistake to subordinate one to another without examining the contingencies of a particular text. In other words, Chronicles is more concerned with historical accuracy than, say, Proverbs or Psalms--although both storytelling and historical detail occur in all three. As for my reading of Genesis? Who knows? I admit ignorance. I only attempt to approach the text as it is, without demanding that it be something else.

 

[DMcFadden]

Paul,

In your studies of Genesis, try RTS prof, Douglas Kelly, "Creation and Change." He argues for a literal reading of Genesis on exegetical and hermeneutical grounds.

 

[AV1611]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Studies-Genesis-One-Edward-Young/dp/0875525504/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-1837731-9618241?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189681938&sr=8-2]Amazon.com: Studies in Genesis One: Books: Edward J. Young[/ame]
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Old-Testament-Edward-Young/dp/0802803393/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/103-1837731-9618241]Amazon.com: An Introduction to the Old Testament: Books: Edward J. Young[/ame]

 

[shackleton]

Opinions are earned, and I admit that I have not done enough research into Genesis to merit any real opinion at all. I would like, however, to offer a few highly provisional comments regarding my approach to the creation narrative found in Genesis.

The relatively recent obsession with historical accuracy in Genesis among evangelicals is needless and ultimately unhelpful. If 19th century criticism sabotaged scripture by revealing historical inaccuracies, attempting the opposite seems merely to engage in the same decreasingly interesting exercise and perpetuate the paradigmatic method of approaching Genesis in terms of its history. In my estimation, the problem evangelicals face is not historical precision but the decline of our imaginative faculties, which results from our subordination of "story" as an inferior version of "history." I hope I bring no offense by citing an example of such subordination in this very thread:

If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

Just stories? The implication is that stories must have the support of a historical event, which, I suppose is true in some senses. Homer wrote of Troy's fall; Dante included historical figures in The Commedia; and Shakespeare's first works were history plays. None of these (or authors like them), however, restricted themselves to historical precision as the their guiding light, and yet their stories reverberate in our culture to this day. How could this be? As Wendell Berry writes in Standing By Words, "We are speaking where we stand, and we shall stand afterwards in the presence of what we have said." Shakespeare and Homer and Dante knew that, and I think the author of Genesis knew that, too. He knew the strange puissance of stories, and so his central purpose was to employ Genesis didactically, as a way of telling God's people, "This is where you come from. This is who you are," and not as a factual chronicle.

I can't prove that last part, of course. I was not there when Moses or whoever it was wrote Genesis, and I didn't ask him whether his account was factual. I doubt he would have known what I meant anyway. Neither was I (or any human being) present at the historical event of creation, making it seem rather silly to demand historical accuracy of Genesis. I think that's part of it; I think Genesis is a story that is supposed to be surrounded by mystery. A friend illumined that point for me in a recent conversation. He said that historically accurate knowledge of creation would be like a detailed account of one's own conception. It's a mystery that, if stripped naked, becomes repulsive.

So I hope you, my reader, will not consider these remarks in defense of stories too finicky. And I certainly hope that nobody reads these statements as hostile toward the historical profession. Historical approaches to scripture are important. Very important. In certain cases, such as the historicity of the resurrection, the event means everything. But I think it a false dilemma to pit historical precision against storytelling, and I think it is a mistake to subordinate one to another without examining the contingencies of a particular text. In other words, Chronicles is more concerned with historical accuracy than, say, Proverbs or Psalms--although both storytelling and historical detail occur in all three. As for my reading of Genesis? Who knows? I admit ignorance. I only attempt to approach the text as it is, without demanding that it be something else.

I don't know where you learned this, but if you take this approach to Genesis it will lead you to take this approach to other books of the bible. You will begin to just write off most of scripture as allegory or say it is loosely based on some distant fact and before you know it you will sound like the "Jesus Seminar"people.
Find some other sources that teach the opposite view, weigh it, and think it through.

 

[A5pointer]

Opinions are earned, and I admit that I have not done enough research into Genesis to merit any real opinion at all. I would like, however, to offer a few highly provisional comments regarding my approach to the creation narrative found in Genesis.

The relatively recent obsession with historical accuracy in Genesis among evangelicals is needless and ultimately unhelpful. If 19th century criticism sabotaged scripture by revealing historical inaccuracies, attempting the opposite seems merely to engage in the same decreasingly interesting exercise and perpetuate the paradigmatic method of approaching Genesis in terms of its history. In my estimation, the problem evangelicals face is not historical precision but the decline of our imaginative faculties, which results from our subordination of "story" as an inferior version of "history." I hope I bring no offense by citing an example of such subordination in this very thread:

If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

Just stories? The implication is that stories must have the support of a historical event, which, I suppose is true in some senses. Homer wrote of Troy's fall; Dante included historical figures in The Commedia; and Shakespeare's first works were history plays. None of these (or authors like them), however, restricted themselves to historical precision as the their guiding light, and yet their stories reverberate in our culture to this day. How could this be? As Wendell Berry writes in Standing By Words, "We are speaking where we stand, and we shall stand afterwards in the presence of what we have said." Shakespeare and Homer and Dante knew that, and I think the author of Genesis knew that, too. He knew the strange puissance of stories, and so his central purpose was to employ Genesis didactically, as a way of telling God's people, "This is where you come from. This is who you are," and not as a factual chronicle.

I can't prove that last part, of course. I was not there when Moses or whoever it was wrote Genesis, and I didn't ask him whether his account was factual. I doubt he would have known what I meant anyway. Neither was I (or any human being) present at the historical event of creation, making it seem rather silly to demand historical accuracy of Genesis. I think that's part of it; I think Genesis is a story that is supposed to be surrounded by mystery. A friend illumined that point for me in a recent conversation. He said that historically accurate knowledge of creation would be like a detailed account of one's own conception. It's a mystery that, if stripped naked, becomes repulsive.

So I hope you, my reader, will not consider these remarks in defense of stories too finicky. And I certainly hope that nobody reads these statements as hostile toward the historical profession. Historical approaches to scripture are important. Very important. In certain cases, such as the historicity of the resurrection, the event means everything. But I think it a false dilemma to pit historical precision against storytelling, and I think it is a mistake to subordinate one to another without examining the contingencies of a particular text. In other words, Chronicles is more concerned with historical accuracy than, say, Proverbs or Psalms--although both storytelling and historical detail occur in all three. As for my reading of Genesis? Who knows? I admit ignorance. I only attempt to approach the text as it is, without demanding that it be something else.

This should not be dismissed so easily. There is no reason for us to feel threatened by the idea that God has taught us and revealed himself through stories. It is likely that this was a legitimate way for instruction of the ancient peoples. Don't go crazy on me for this, I am not making a broad determination about Genesis, just saying we needn't feel so threatened. We have been granted the mind of Christ through the work of the Spirit to understand and believe the Gospel contained in the scriptures. Our faith is not based on every jot and title being historically acurate. The ancient audience may not have had our strict paradigm in this sense.

 

[Peter]

My 1st observation is that an allegorical and literal interpretation are not mutually exclusive. It's possible Genesis happened as literally described but that a religious message was intended to be conveyed symbolically through historical facts.

2nd, we should avoid falling into the trap of automatically believing if we take one passage as allegorical and not literally true it will inescapably lead us into rejecting all of scripture. We should deal with the merits of each case individually and not play to the fears of irrelevant issues. Personally, I find reducing scripture to a mere science or history textbook degrading to its sacred integrity. The Bible's purpose is more elevated than that - namely, revealing to man the way of salvation in Christ.

 

[caddy]

I like how this was phrased and think it is insightful. There is much mystery in the Genesis story. So much of the "detail" we just don't have. I remember my philososphy and religion professor 20 years ago talking about the stories in Genesis and the stories of the Exodus and the parting of the Red Sea. He explained to the class that the story was no less important because of the truth it conveyed even though we should call the story a myth, meaning not factual. I did not know it then, but now I find it a slippery slope.

Glad to hear you say the event means everything.

Slippery slope story which I found insightful not long ago:

The slippery slide to unbelief

Opinions are earned, and I admit that I have not done enough research into Genesis to merit any real opinion at all. I would like, however, to offer a few highly provisional comments regarding my approach to the creation narrative found in Genesis.

The relatively recent obsession with historical accuracy in Genesis among evangelicals is needless and ultimately unhelpful. If 19th century criticism sabotaged scripture by revealing historical inaccuracies, attempting the opposite seems merely to engage in the same decreasingly interesting exercise and perpetuate the paradigmatic method of approaching Genesis in terms of its history. In my estimation, the problem evangelicals face is not historical precision but the decline of our imaginative faculties, which results from our subordination of "story" as an inferior version of "history." I hope I bring no offense by citing an example of such subordination in this very thread:

If our enemy can get people to think that the accounts of the fall of man, sin, the flood, Abraham, etc are just a bunch of stories, then it knocks the very foundation from the promise and fulfillment of the coming of Christ, His death, ressurection and atonement for our sin.

Just stories? The implication is that stories must have the support of a historical event, which, I suppose is true in some senses. Homer wrote of Troy's fall; Dante included historical figures in The Commedia; and Shakespeare's first works were history plays. None of these (or authors like them), however, restricted themselves to historical precision as the their guiding light, and yet their stories reverberate in our culture to this day. How could this be? As Wendell Berry writes in Standing By Words, "We are speaking where we stand, and we shall stand afterwards in the presence of what we have said." Shakespeare and Homer and Dante knew that, and I think the author of Genesis knew that, too. He knew the strange puissance of stories, and so his central purpose was to employ Genesis didactically, as a way of telling God's people, "This is where you come from. This is who you are," and not as a factual chronicle.

I can't prove that last part, of course. I was not there when Moses or whoever it was wrote Genesis, and I didn't ask him whether his account was factual. I doubt he would have known what I meant anyway. Neither was I (or any human being) present at the historical event of creation, making it seem rather silly to demand historical accuracy of Genesis. I think that's part of it; I think Genesis is a story that is supposed to be surrounded by mystery. A friend illumined that point for me in a recent conversation. He said that historically accurate knowledge of creation would be like a detailed account of one's own conception. It's a mystery that, if stripped naked, becomes repulsive.

So I hope you, my reader, will not consider these remarks in defense of stories too finicky. And I certainly hope that nobody reads these statements as hostile toward the historical profession. Historical approaches to scripture are important. Very important. In certain cases, such as the historicity of the resurrection, the event means everything. But I think it a false dilemma to pit historical precision against storytelling, and I think it is a mistake to subordinate one to another without examining the contingencies of a particular text. In other words, Chronicles is more concerned with historical accuracy than, say, Proverbs or Psalms--although both storytelling and historical detail occur in all three. As for my reading of Genesis? Who knows? I admit ignorance. I only attempt to approach the text as it is, without demanding that it be something else.

 

[Mathetes]

Leaving aside the issue of whether "six days" is literal or figurative, there's little in Genesis that's symbolic. There's the odd dream here and there, but the majority of it reads like it's referring to actual, historical events.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I believe Genesis as it reads. To do anything else does great violence to the rest of scripture in my opinion.

 

[AV1611]

I believe Genesis as it reads. To do anything else does great violence to the rest of scripture in my opinion.

 

[caddy]

Absolutely.

Leaving aside the issue of whether "six days" is literal or figurative, there's little in Genesis that's symbolic. There's the odd dream here and there, but the majority of it reads like it's referring to actual, historical events.

I believe Genesis as it reads. To do anything else does great violence to the rest of scripture in my opinion.

 

[2 Tim 4:2]

Yea hath God Said....

.....Ye shall not surely die

Satan has always worked to question God's words since the begining of time. And those who fall prey to his devices should check themsleves.

 

[weinhold]

I don't know where you learned this, but if you take this approach to Genesis it will lead you to take this approach to other books of the bible. You will begin to just write off most of scripture as allegory or say it is loosely based on some distant fact and before you know it you will sound like the "Jesus Seminar"people.

Erick, as others have indicated already, we needn't subordinate allegory to history; saying that Genesis is a story makes it very meaningful, perhaps more meaningful than a historical chronicling of the events. To my mind, this is the advantage Genesis has over any scientific approach to our beginning. When scientific claims about these things reach my ears, I find it satisfying to remember that those claims are just that, hypothetical assertions, and that Genesis is a far more beautiful story than theirs. It provides me with an identity in a way that evolution never could, and it does this precisely because it is a story.

 

[JBaldwin]

Weinhold said:

Erick, as others have indicated already, we needn't subordinate allegory to history; saying that Genesis is a story makes it very meaningful, perhaps more meaningful than a historical chronicling of the events. To my mind, this is the advantage Genesis has over any scientific approach to our beginning. When scientific claims about these things reach my ears, I find it satisfying to remember that those claims are just that, hypothetical assertions, and that Genesis is a far more beautiful story than theirs. It provides me with an identity in a way that evolution never could, and it does this precisely because it is a story.

The problem with saying that Genesis is mere stories or allegory is that it makes the events in the Garden, including the fall of man, the entrance of sin into the world, the life of Abraham, the founding of the Israel nothing more than nice stories to teach truth. They do teach truth, and we learn so much from that. However, if they are just stories and not historical truth, than we cannot point back to an historical moment when man sinned, or an historical moment when God promised that the seed of woman would bring forth the Messiah and crush the serpent's head. These facts are foundational to our redemption. This is why we must take Genesis as historical fact, as well as stories that teach.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

The problem with saying that Genesis is mere stories or allegory is that it makes the events in the Garden, including the fall of man, the entrance of sin into the world, the life of Abraham, the founding of the Israel nothing more than nice stories to teach truth. They do teach truth, and we learn so much from that. However, if they are just stories and not historical truth, than we cannot point back to an historical moment when man sinned, or an historical moment when God promised that the seed of woman would bring forth the Messiah and crush the serpent's head. These facts are foundational to our redemption. This is why we must take Genesis as historical fact, as well as stories that teach.

Well said.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Yes, the Genesis accounts are stories (I have no problem with the genre), but they are true stories, that is, God-inspired narratives (in the main narratives) of actual history.

If the account of the creation and Fall of man are "myth" or "symbol" and not solid facts, that makes the need for redemption by a Savior unnecessary.

This is one of the most damning things about Westcott and Hort, they were fervent evolutionists, and deprecated the historicity of the Genesis account.

The historicity of this book is a battle worth fighting and dying for.

In their view of this book men fly their true colors.

 

[2 Tim 4:2]

It provides me with an identity in a way that evolution never could, and it does this precisely because it is a story.

Why is that?

 

[DMcFadden]

While I have my own view of the issue of literal 6 day vs. a literary reading (e.g., the "framework" view), I would contend that not accepting the accuracy of the history contained in the narratives leads in one direction; it is quite simply disbelief. Whether you opine along the lines of the Answers in Genesis crowd or Meredith Kline's framework theory it would seem to me that the one thing we canNOT afford is to interpret Genesis as something other than history. Virtually all of the doctrines we cherish are taught, implied, or rooted in the historical narrative of Genesis 1-11.

Calvin's accommodationalism gave rise to a belief that science and sound theology could be reconciled. If the genre of Genesis is shown to be a literary fable, so be it. However, so much of what our present day society struggles with results from a hermeneutic that begins with saying that Genesis does not really "mean" what it "says."

Incidentally, a computer analysis of Genesis has shown with something like a 99.73% confidence level that Genesis 1-11 purports to be historical narrative of the ordinary sort. According to the researcher, it lacks the linguistic markers necessary to suggest anything else (cf. Steven W. Boyd, Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry).

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If the creation event is metaphor or allegory, so is the creation account.

If the creation account is metaphor or allegory, so is the creation of Adam and Eve.

If Adam and Eve are not real people in real historical narratives, the fall is a metaphor or allegory.

If the fall, then Noah.

If Noah, then the flood and the wickedness of men.

If the wickedness of men and the flood, then Abraham.

If Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then Moses, then David, then the prophets, then Jesus Christ.

If they are all metaphor or allegory, so goes the entire Christian faith.

The entire OT text reads like historical narrative WITH aspects of literary usage in the HISTORICAL NARRATIVES. OTherwise, you have nothing but conjecture on everything.

The same Genesis narrative that explains Abraham, explains creation. It assumes a geneological chronology from primeval history through to the Gospel accounts.

In interpreting the text, one simply needs to ask what Genesis meant to Harriet Lichenstien of Israel in 2000 BC.

 

[fredtgreco]

Yes, the Genesis accounts are stories (I have no problem with the genre), but they are true stories, that is, God-inspired narratives (in the main narratives) of actual history.

If the account of the creation and Fall of man are "myth" or "symbol" and not solid facts, that makes the need for redemption by a Savior unnecessary.

This is one of the most damning things about Westcott and Hort, they were fervent evolutionists, and deprecated the historicity of the Genesis account.

The historicity of this book is a battle worth fighting and dying for.

In their view of this book men fly their true colors.

Steve,

This is an excellent point. If one wavers even an iota on Genesis being a true story, he has lost everything. Why? Because our Lord treated them as real with real people and real events - Moses, Abraham, Lot, etc.

 

[weinhold]

It provides me with an identity in a way that evolution never could, and it does this precisely because it is a story.

Why is that?

Great question, Mark. If evolution or some other discovery provided a factual account of human origins, it would illumine the "how" of our beginnings, but would still fail to surround those bare facts with any sort of meaning. But stories have the capacity to answer the meaningful questions humans seek. Stories root us in a tradition; they propel us toward an eschaton; they saturate our lives with allusion; and they offer a glimpse of those spiritual realities that unite humans to each other and to the divine. Science could hardly do the work of a good poem. It has its place, of course, and is a noble profession, but it quite rightly limits itself to the factuality of the physical world.

Another point comes to mind regarding facts. We generally think of fact as synonymous with truth. There are facts and there are falsities. This path of factuality, which some have referred to as "The Myth of Fact," leads ultimately to statistics. How do we know something? Quantify it. Again, I hope I will not bring offense when I mention an example from this thread:

Incidentally, a computer analysis of Genesis has shown with something like a 99.73% confidence level that Genesis 1-11 purports to be historical narrative of the ordinary sort. According to the researcher, it lacks the linguistic markers necessary to suggest anything else (cf. Steven W. Boyd, Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry).

I think the proper word for this degree of quantification is "ridiculous." Who could read "99.73% confidence level" without a chuckle? But it is precisely the dominance of fact, which tricks us into believing that it is always and everywhere truth, that often lets our eyes pass over it without any reaction at all other than effortless consent.

By contrast, I assert that fact is a species of truth and is not equal to it, so that my reading of Genesis allows for it to be a true story, without demanding that it be a factual story in the sense of strict historical precision. It may indeed be such an account, but I don't think the text demands that we take it that way; I don't think that is what it is trying to be. Genesis is first and foremost a story (a noun that I would never modify with "mere" or "only" or "just"), and because it is so, its primary mode of imparting knowledge is different from fact but nonetheless true.

 

[2 Tim 4:2]

It provides me with an identity in a way that evolution never could, and it does this precisely because it is a story.

Why is that?

Great question, Mark. If evolution or some other discovery provided a factual account of human origins, it would illumine the "how" of our beginnings, but would still fail to surround those bare facts with any sort of meaning. But stories have the capacity to answer the meaningful questions humans seek. Stories root us in a tradition; they propel us toward an eschaton; they saturate our lives with allusion; and they offer a glimpse of those spiritual realities that unite humans to each other and to the divine. Science could hardly do the work of a good poem. It has its place, of course, and is a noble profession, but it quite rightly limits itself to the factuality of the physical world.

Another point comes to mind regarding facts. We generally think of fact as synonymous with truth. There are facts and there are falsities. This path of factuality, which some have referred to as "The Myth of Fact," leads ultimately to statistics. How do we know something? Quantify it. Again, I hope I will not bring offense when I mention an example from this thread:

Incidentally, a computer analysis of Genesis has shown with something like a 99.73% confidence level that Genesis 1-11 purports to be historical narrative of the ordinary sort. According to the researcher, it lacks the linguistic markers necessary to suggest anything else (cf. Steven W. Boyd, Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry).

I think the proper word for this degree of quantification is "ridiculous." Who could read "99.73% confidence level" without a chuckle? But it is precisely the dominance of fact, which tricks us into believing that it is always and everywhere truth, that often lets our eyes pass over it without any reaction at all other than effortless consent.

By contrast, I assert that fact is a species of truth and is not equal to it, so that my reading of Genesis allows for it to be a true story, without demanding that it be a factual story in the sense of strict historical precision. It may indeed be such an account, but I don't think the text demands that we take it that way; I don't think that is what it is trying to be. Genesis is first and foremost a story (a noun that I would never modify with "mere" or "only" or "just"), and because it is so, its primary mode of imparting knowledge is different from fact but nonetheless true.

I appreciate you response.

I find interesting your ability to divorce science from the story. What science in the Genesis account can be incorrect and still be a believable and doctrinally sound "story"? Who determines what is fact and what is not fact in the Genesis account? How far do we go with this line of thought? Do we take it into the the death, burial, and ressurrection of Jesus Christ? Or would you concede that this account is scientifically accurate? If Genesis is not then how do we know that the events surrounding the life of Christ are? And what do you understand about the inspriation of scripture?

When you say that scripture can be wrong or scientifically incorrect then you make yourself the judge of scripture rather than scripture being your judge.

And lastly I found your ability to call something true even when the scientific facts are believed to be incorrect. What author could I read to look into such a mind set?

And just a side question. Do you identify yourself with the Emerging Church Movment?

 

[k.seymore]

Mark said: "I find interesting your ability to divorce science from the story. What science in the Genesis account can be incorrect and still be a believable and doctrinally sound "story"? Who determines what is fact and what is not fact in the Genesis account? How far do we go with this line of thought?"

"I found your ability to call something true even when the scientific facts are believed to be incorrect. What author could I read to look into such a mind set?"

You ask what author you could read to look into this mind set... Calvin is a great place to start. As anyone who has starts reading Calvin's Commentaries from the beginning knows, he jumps into these concepts really quickly (I'll get to Calvin in a little bit). Genesis wasn't written in our own language and with our conceptions of nature. If so it wouldn't have made sense to anyone for thousands of years. Our thoughts would have been nonsense to them–just like their concepts sometimes seem like nonsense to us. For instance, the Ancient Near Easterners perceived the sky/heavens as being a hard curved surface above us like an upside-down bowl. This hard thing is the firmament (which means hammered out thing) and is heaven. Heaven is transparent, and there is water above it (perhaps they were thinking of the blue that you see when you look up). When one looks up he is seeing the inside of heaven (like seeing the inside of a flipped-over bowl). The sun/moon/planets/stars are inside the bowl (they are inside the firmament) on our side of heaven, and the water is above heaven, although it sometimes rains down through heaven on us. I absolutely love reading the ancient texts of Israel's neighbors, and if you read Ancient Near Eastern texts you will start to see their conception. For instance in Enuma Elish, heaven is described as being like the top half of a shellfish's shell, and it keeps the water off the earth which is underneath this heaven/bowl. Another example is in the Gilgamesh Epic where during the flood the gods were terrified at the great flood and "fled to the highest heaven, the firmament... they crouched against the walls" which means they were inside heaven (on our side of heaven, the side we see when we look up), pressed against heaven which was like a hard wall to escape the waters rising below them. Another example in in the Baal Cycle the water comes down from heaven where the stars are. These conceptions seem like nonsense to us.

Calvin wouldn't have had this information about Ancient Near Eastern beliefs (which have been discovered after his time), but he still recognizes that this is the type of language being used. He brings up Psa 148 in Genesis 1 while explaining that these waters above the heavens were simply accommodation to the perception of the unlearned: "Praise him, all his angels;praise him, all his hosts!Praise him, sun and moon,praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens,and you waters above the heavens!" (Psa 148:2-4). That the water over heaven is accommodation as Calvin says seems to be confirmed by other places in scripture where it speaks of the same thing. In Job the"heavens" are described as a firm or hard thing: "Can you, like him, spread out the skies (same word: heavens),hard as a cast metal mirror?" (Job 37:18). This hard sky is the "firmament" which literally means "hammered out thing," and it is this hard thing God names "heaven" in Genesis 1: "God called the firmament Heaven" (Gen 1:7-8). This hard heaven has a surface, and Genesis 1 also says bird can fly across the surface of heaven:"let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament." (Gen 1:20). The firmament is the firm heaven that is hard as cast metal that God "spreads out" to keep the water off of everything under heaven, and it has openings in it to let the rain come down. For instance, Genesis also says that"the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth" (Gen 7:11-12) which shows that the water is perceived as outside heaven falling through it and falling on to earth which is below heaven. It seems likely that the Israelites also would have perceived the blue sky as being the waters above because the firmament in scripture is not just described as being as hard as metal, but also clear like crystal. When Ezekiel sees a platform over his head that is hard and transparent "as crystal"he says it has "the likeness of the firmament" (Ezek 1:22) which tells us what he understood the firmament to look like. I found another possible example when I was reading Exodus the other day... when the elders and Moses see God above them on the mountain, the hard pavement below his feet is described as"like the very heaven for clearness" (Ex 24:10) which would be a fitting thing to say if they thought of the heaven as being a hard transparent firmament similar to the pavement they were then seeing.

With this in mind, here is Calvin on the waters in Genesis 1. Calvin says God is described as creating something that we know isn't really there. Calvin says this is because the Hebrews wouldn't have understood anything else:

"It appears opposed to common sense [that is, sound like nonsense to us], and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven... to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception... it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses... We know, indeed that the rain is naturally produced"

So Calvin describes those who take this particular description of nature "by faith" are "in ignorance respecting them" since a description of science is not the point of what Moses is writing. He is telling us about God being the creator in the language "of the unlearned" and to learn about science, "go elsewhere." He continues this line of thought in Genesis 1 when he gets to the creation of the Sun & Moon.

This way Calvin speaks may seem odd at first, but as you read more of him you start to see that he doesn't just think this way about descriptions of nature in scripture, but even more so about descriptions of God. Since this is a thread about creation I'll just list one example (Sorry to get off topic): Calvin says God does not get angry. That is just an anthropomorphism. This is from the Institutes:

"God is described to us humanly... Because our weakness cannot reach his height, any description which wereceive of him must be lowered to our capacity in order to be intelligible.And the mode of lowering is to represent him not as he really is, but as we conceive of him. Though he is incapable of every feeling of perturbation, he declares that he is angry with the wicked. Wherefore, as when we hear that God is angry, we ought not to imagine that there is any emotion in him, butought rather to consider the mode of speech accommodated to our sense, God appearing to us like one inflamed and irritated..."

And in Hosea 11:8-9 in the Commentaries he says God puts "on a character foreign to himself, as much as a regard for our salvation will bear or require... 'I will not execute the fury of my wrath': by which figurative mode of speaking he sets forth the punishment which was suitable to the sins of men... But why does Scripture say that God is angry? Even because we imagine him to be so according to the perception of the flesh... God, with regard to our perception, calls the fury of his wrath the heavy judgment, which is equal to, or meet for, our sins."

As I've read more and more places where Calvin uses language like this I've also began to see that he describes God's communication of himself as being like a sacrament, so although there is communication which isn't in of itself literally true, it is described as a "token of his presence" and an "outward sign" and is God (and truths about God) "represented and exhibited" to the person (see Commentaries on Isaiah 6).

I could go on and on (sorry this is so long already) but to summarize, the exact descriptions of nature in Genesis 1 don't have to be scientifically accurate to convey the truth about God as creator any more than Bread and Wine need to be scientifically Jesus' actual body & blood to convey the truth about God as Redeemer in Christ.

Another example I just thought of regarding the creation account... when Moses says on the seventh day God "rested and was refreshed" (Ex. 31:17), Was God really refreshed? Or is this an anthromoporphism? Something we can understand and emulate as humans?

 

[caddy]

Amen to this Dennis! Well said.

While I have my own view of the issue of literal 6 day vs. a literary reading (e.g., the "framework" view), I would contend that not accepting the accuracy of the history contained in the narratives leads in one direction; it is quite simply disbelief. Whether you opine along the lines of the Answers in Genesis crowd or Meredith Kline's framework theory it would seem to me that the one thing we canNOT afford is to interpret Genesis as something other than history. Virtually all of the doctrines we cherish are taught, implied, or rooted in the historical narrative of Genesis 1-11.

Calvin's accommodationalism gave rise to a belief that science and sound theology could be reconciled. If the genre of Genesis is shown to be a literary fable, so be it. However, so much of what our present day society struggles with results from a hermeneutic that begins with saying that Genesis does not really "mean" what it "says."

Incidentally, a computer analysis of Genesis has shown with something like a 99.73% confidence level that Genesis 1-11 purports to be historical narrative of the ordinary sort. According to the researcher, it lacks the linguistic markers necessary to suggest anything else (cf. Steven W. Boyd, Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry).

 

[caddy]

PB friends and Members. I have been in dialogue with a friend for a number of months concerning the faith. He has been most gracious over that time to discuss his views with me. He has asked some very tough questions. I have sought to share my views with him concerning such issues as we are dicussing here and now in this thread on the importance of God's word. Is it trusthworthy. Does it mean what it says and and can reading it in its proper context help us to understand what God is trying to convey to us. Suprisingly, we have kept our level of conversation amiable. For the most part we have discused the evidences of scripture, science, intelligent design, philosophy and history as it relates to a God. All of us on this forum have made professions of faith and think He is knowable and wants us to know Him. I have pointed him here on occasion, knowing that many--if not most of you--are much more gifted than I am at conveying your faith in a winsome and intelligent fashion. I have been honored to be a part of this group. With his persmission I have asked him if I could post some of his comments for this group to interact with.

His last two posts to me I will Post here. Please feel free to interact with his questions. I do not know his name, but for the sake of brevity I have been calling him simply: "B".

His first two posts concerning this thread, which I pointed him to are here:

1:Great discussion. That's a big decision you have to make about litteral interpretation. On one hand you can believe in the "slippery slope" like some, and on the other hand you can believe it's inevitable. There are enough people who believe in God AND evolution/big bang that I think believing science doens't mean you reject God or Christianity. You just have to change you mindset a bit.
K.Seymore's post is very interesting, about how Genesis was not written "for us" and thus if it had been written literally, it couldn't have been true both of us and the early people.
I don't face the same dilmena as you, fortunately.


2:You have my permission to post any ideas I share with you, it's gracious of you to ask.
I think if you say the genesis language was "non scientific" (as opposed to "non litteral") doesn't that also make it possible to be compatible with science? It seemed to me like that was the point he was trying to make, but perhaps he was wrong.
As you can guess, I identify strongly with weinhold in that discussion. One may say it's a slippery slope to not take genesis literrally, for some people's faith; however, it's also a very slippery slope when you start picking and choosing what parts of science you choose to oppose, based on science' disagreement with litteral genesis. This is what I argued in our previous discussions, that if you challenge certain parts of certain scientific fields, you're challenging pretty much all of science. You're setting yourself up to oppose on moral grounds certain scientific observations that by themselves have no moral significance. They only have moral significance to YOU because you have first chosen to say "my morality rests on my litteral interpretation of Genesis". This is kind of what happens with evolution today. For many people like myself, the fact that humans may be descendents of animals does not have any impact on human dignity today. We are humans, we need to treat others the way we would want to be treated ourselves.
It makes no difference to me what our species was before. YOU were never a monkey, YOU were always human, and you have human dignity.

Please interact--providing there are no objections to going forward with this format. And let me thank you in advance for any light you might be able to shed.

Steve

 

[greenbaggins]

The Nature of Genesis' History

It seems very important in this discussion to make some key distinctions. The first is that even if some things are interpreted in a non-literal manner (I agree, for instance, that Moses meant to describe the heavens as a solid object; it is phenomenological description), that doesn't mean that it isn't history. Personally, I think the best exegetical case can be made for the literal 24-hour view of the creation days, even if I believe that the raqia is solid. One of the basic problems here is that historical writing has changed in many ways from the time period of Genesis to the time period of today. For us, everything has to be chronologically in order, and scientifically described. However, we must not press this distinction too finely, either, since we still use the expression, "the sun rose." Calvin's principle of accomodation is vitally important here. However, the principle of accomodation in no way limits the historicity of the account. Genesis is fully historical. The creation happened, the Fall happened. You could have videotaped it. However, Moses' description of these events just plain doesn't look like a modern description would have looked. Another problem here is that we are gun-shy of anything that says that such and such literature is theological, therefore it cannot be historical, or vice versa. The fact is that Scripture is both. In the midst of describing history (accurately according to ancient standards), Scripture is theologizing.

Another great example is the difference between Chronicles and Kings. Kings was written during the exile. It was answering the question, "How did it come to this?" Kings therefore records every last failing of every monarch. Historical? Yes. Theological? Yes. What about Chronicles? Chronicles was written after the exile. The Chronicler was asking a different question: "Is there any continuity at all between the pre-exilic Israel and the post-exilic Israel? Is God still our God? Is there any hope for us to be the people of God?" This is why Chronicles "neglects" to mention David's fall into sin with Bathsheba, or Solomon's decline. This is why Chronicles mentions Manasseh's repentance. These are intentional differences. The Chronicler did not forget his history. The Chronicler was writing to a drastically different audience with a completely different set of concerns. He was writing to give them hope. Historical? Yes. Theological? Yes.

Back to Genesis: Moses was writing for the people of Israel, who had come out of the land of Egypt. They needed to know certain things about the so-called gods of Egypt and Mesopotamia. There is a definite apologetic edge to Genesis, especially in chapter 1 (see my Accent Translation for more detailed spelling out of this issue). The apologetical issue for Moses, however, was not about whether science and the Bible conflict (here I think Answers in Genesis has much that is helpful to say, and, as someone mentioned, Douglas Kelly's book is also very good). Rather, Moses' apologetic was directed against the other Ancient Near Eastern gods.