February 10, 2006

Reevaluating Genesis

For some time now, I have been curious about the fact that, although I have been taught, and it always seemed to me, that the most straightforward interpretation of Genesis 1-3 was that God created the earth in 6 astronomical days (I never understood why they necessarily had to be 24 hour days, but whatever), many commentators, both Jewish and Christian, writing before the development of the modern scientific theories which Evangelicals often accuse of prejudicing intepreters, have adopted a "day-age theory" understanding of the text. Augustine and Nachminides are supposed to be good examples (I haven't read the primary sources). I also noted, quite some time ago, that in the flood narrative, the Hebrew term for "world" literally means "inhabited earth" (an article I read recently claimed that it could refer to a particular land, as in "the land of Israel" as well, but I'm getting to that), so that if the annual floods of the Tigris, Euphrates, and possibly the Nile were to rise to unprecedented heights in the same season, so as to join one another, a native speaker of the language who believed God was responsible for the weather might have uttered a phrase translated as "the flood covered the whole earth."

Now, to clarify, I have never been a "young universe" creationist. That is, I see absolutely no Biblical justification for the belief that the whole universe is merely a few thousand years old. The reason for this is that I have believed basically ever since I started looking at it that the first two chapters of Genesis contain not two but three creation narratives.

If you remember your high school (or perhaps middle school) English class, you will probably remember being taught that in writing essays you should begin your introductory paragraph with very broad statements and, over the course of the paragraph focus in to your thesis. This is precisely what I believe the beginning of Genesis does. The subject matter of the Bible is the relationship between God and man. The subject matter of the Torah is the relationship between God and Israel. Genesis serves as an historical introduction to these topics. Verse one I take to be the first account. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That is, at the very beginning of time, before anything at all existed, God create everything that exists, ex nihilo. The first story deals with the creation of the entire universe. The next story, found in 1:2-2:3, is about the creation of the planet earth, the location where the action of the story is to take place. Interestingly, this account begins, in verse 2, with "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness covered the surface of the watery depths, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters." The first account is a creation ex nihilo account, but the second is an order from chaos story. This implies that the ex nihilo creation of the matter of the universe had already taken place when God began to form the planet earth in the second story. The third story, found in chapter 2, focuses further on the creation of mankind from the dust; that is, from the material of the planet earth. Later we get the history of the human race, and then we focus to the history of the Hebrew people.

Nevertheless, it remains the case that what I have labeled the second account, the account of the creation of the earth, uses the phrase "Evening came, and then morning: the first day" in 1:5, and similar phrases in several other places, and this is what led me to suppose that there must be six astronomical days; that is, that the earth must rotate about its axis 6 times during the course of the whole creation. However, there is the problem that the counting of days begins before the creation of the sun in vv. 14-18. This can be solved simply by pointing out that the text of the passage can support a reading on which God merely places the pre-existing sun, moon, and stars in the sky, making them visible to (yet to be created) people on earth and appointing them as time keepers. On the other hand, I once read that Nachminides said that the Hebrew word for "evening" had originally meant "chaos" (because darkness is associated with chaos), and "morning" had meant "order," so that these lines should in fact be read as "there was chaos moving to order, and it was one time-period." This can solve the difficulty of there being days before there is a sun, or at least before the sun is visible from earth.

Now, recently I read two more interesting articles. The first was from the blog Higgaion, which I found through Biblical Studies Carnival II. The article is entitled "Why I Am Not a Creationist". In this article, Christopher Heard, who, according to his profile, is a professor of religion in Oak Park California (doesn't say what school), makes six points in an argument that the creationism current in Evangelical circles is bad Scriptural interpretation. I will deal briefly with each of his points.

"1. Creationism depends on genre confusion." This argument I have heard before. The claim is that the first chapter of Genesis is "a highly structured ... theological paean to God." Now, I don't know anything about semitic paeans, but I do know something about songs with theological content today. For instance, when I was in Sunday school as a child, we learned a song that began "In the beginning, God made the sea / And the forest filled with trees / He made the mountains up so high / And on the very top He placed the sky." Now, one mights ask whether God made the mountains before or after the trees, whether the sky is the sort of thing that one can "place" (since it is not really an object per se), whether it makes sense to talk about the sky being "above" anything, since we are really talking about space and there is not an absolute "up," and so forth, but none of these questions has any bearing on the "truth" of this song. The song is "true" in the sense that God really responsible for the creation of the things named, regardles of how or in what order He went about it. However, I suspect that the genre conventions for a semitic "theological paean" do involve rather more direct literal truth than the genre conventions for Sunday school songs (particularly this one, which was, in fact, about the reason for the creation of the hippopotamus), such that we can probably still expect Genesis 1 to be at least a "poetic account" of real events, whatever that means. I have heard people claim that there is no difference of genres within the single book of Genesis, and I don't read Hebrew so I can't adequately evaluate the conflicting claims, but I suspect that there is a genre difference between chapter one and the rest of the book, although chapter 2 probably belongs to the same genre as the parts of the book that are verifiably historical. In short, I really don't feel qualified to evaluate this claim or its consequences without first doing a great deal of study on the Hebrew language and early semitic cultures ... maybe some day ...

"2. The Bible tells multiple creation stories." I've heard this one before too, and never thought it was very important. I do not see Genesis chapters 1 and 2 as being contradictory at all, but Professor Heard makes a new and interesting point that I had not seen before. He believes that Psalm 74, beginning in verse 12, is yet another creation account. I think this is probably just another version of the order-from-chaos account found in Genesis 1:2-2:3, but I don't know what to make of large portions of it, especially the stuff about Leviathan. Hmm.

Points 3-5 are intended to show, collectively, that the Biblical creation stories are similar to Babylonian and Egyptian accounts, and what the readers are really supposed to notice is the differences, which mostly have to do with the type of deity involved. I agree that this is the most important point being made by the Biblical accounts of creation, but am not at all convinced that this completely invalidates any attempt to glean other truth from them.

"6. Biblical creation texts seem perfectly comfortable with the idea of intermediate agents/causes in God's creative activity." I like this point. Look, for instance, at Genesis 1:24 where God commands "Let the earth produce living creatures." The earth produces the living creatures, at God's prompting. Why, then, is the Biblical text taken as precluding any use of naturalistic operations on God's part?

The second article I read recently was "Young Earth Creationism: A Literal Mistake" by Dick Fischer (HT: Sun and Shield). This article overblows some of its points and comes up with some consequences that I find theologically untenable (as, e.g., that Adam and Noah literally existed, but not all human beings alive today are descendents of this bloodline), but he makes two important points that I want to examine. His overall argument is that a straightforward, literal interpretation of Genesis is actually incompatible with young earth creationism.

His first point regards literal 24 hour days. The first point people always make to this is that Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 seem to suggest that we needn't take this literally. I would respond to this by asking about the "there was evening and there was morning" portions, but he answers this objection to. Psalm 90:6 talks about grass growing in the morning and being cut down in the evening. This is, of course, not literal, and some commentators have thought that "morning" was used for a general period of growth, and evening for a period of decay. Furthermore, Genesis 2:4 says "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." If we take the word "day" in the literal sense of the English word, then one 24 hour day must be equal to six 24 hour days, which is, of course, impossible.

The second interesting point is that some of the discussion of Eden actually sounds like it is talking about irrigation. In particular, the term sometimes translated "mist" in Genesis 2:6 sometimes means "fountain." The area described is a desert with fertile river valleys, but very little rain (between the Tigris and Euphrates), so the text could be describing the local situation there where the land was watered by irrigation and annual floods, but received no rain.

Increasingly it seems to me that the Genesis account is not intended to say what it has been made to say. Also, I have been unable to find any evidence of anything like young earth creationism prior to about 1850. This would seem to indicate that it is not part of historical Christian belief, but rather a reaction against certain modern anti-Christian influences. Today its wide acceptance among Evangelicals is probably due to the threat posed by the Neo-Darwinist philosophy of people like Richard Dawkins, which is indeed hostile to Christianity, but goes far beyond the actual scientific theory of evolution.

Christianity does, of course, insist that God created the world. Furthermore, it seems that, although man himself was formed from the earth, and woman from man, rather than ex nihilo (Gen. 2:7, 2:22), God "breathes the breath of life" into the man, and this, certainly, tells us that Christians must hold that something unique happened at the creation of the first man, which did not happen with regard to the animals. I certainly have yet to be completely converted to having no qualms about accepting evolutionary theory as presently understood by science, but through the considerations listed above, I am beginning to see that there really is no good reason to suppose that Christianity requires belief even in the limited form of young earth creationism that I had previously accepted (as I had often said, "the earth as we know it today was formed by God from chaos six to ten thousand years ago" - this is nothing so radical as the position Fischer argues against, but still somewhat troubling). This is something I intend to continue to evaluate critically, as I am still uncertain as to exactly what it is we are supposed to understand as the message of the early chapters of Genesis. In particular, it still seems to me that because of the way Christian theology draws lessons from history it is necessary that the story of Adam and Eve and the garden records a real event (though perhaps not completely literally) through which sin entered the world, and that all human beings alive today are their descendents.

Posted by Kenny at February 10, 2006 1:28 PM
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog.kennypearce.net/admin/mt-tb.cgi/177


Good post. Thanks for visiting my blog.

Posted by: Martin LaBar at February 10, 2006 3:23 PM

Dear Kenny,
I got your mom's forward of your first letter from Greece and then looked at your blog. I found your entry on creation interesting and thought I would respond to a few points. I am definitely a creationist, but admit that I don't have all the answers. But I do think that evolutionists have fewer answers!
I have no intellectual problem with a young earth, (or young universe, for that matter). Once we accept the basic premise that God created the universe ex nihilo, He can create it with any apparent age He wishes. It has to have some apparent age, so how can we know what it was at its creation. I don't see how we can know the exact "real" age of the universe, or that it matters.
I found the "order from chaos" idea interesting. I had never heard it before. It doesn't fit very well with the phrases, "There was evening and there was morning, a second [third, fourth,etc.]day."
The point about the Bible defining "day" differently, using Ps. 90:4 and II Peter 3:8 as examples doesn't hold up in my opinion. I think these two passages are merely meant to explain that God views time differently than we do. Especially Ps. 90:4--"For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." These two references are quite different in length--24 hours as opposed to about three hours (a watch period for a soldier). So we can't make a one-to-one correspondence.
Finally the reference to Ps. 74:12-17. I agree that the references to "sea monsters" and "Leviathan" are rather puzzling, but the reference to deliverance and dividing the sea seem to refer to the exodus events, so perhaps the other things do also, simply some events that are not recorded in Exodus but were a part of the oral traditions of the Jewish people. The passage goes on to speak of the wilderness
and breaking open springs. Then the psalmist just goes on the affirm that all of creation is basically God's--a common theme of the Psalms.
I expect you're right about the multiple creation stories. I like your division into three.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Posted by: Nancy Gilbert at February 11, 2006 10:26 PM

Nancy, of course we are not debating about whether to be "creationists," - that is, we all agree that the universe was created from nothing by God! The question is what exactly this commits us to from a scientific perspective.

One of the points made in the article that I didn't mention here is that a God who created a young universe to look old would be a God who deceived his creatures.

The "order from chaos" idea has to do with a controversy about whether our English translatiions that say "there was evening and there was morning, a second day" are in fact correct. In song lyrics or poetry, it would be perfectly acceptable to describe a series of events and then, as a sort of refrain repeat, "there was chaos, then there was order: a second day ... there was chaos, then there was order: a third day ..." etc.

I agree that the Psalm and 2 Peter references are not very compelling. However, I do find the argument from Genesis 2:4 quite compelling, since 1 day = 6 days works only if the word for day is not restricted in its meaning to the literal meaning of the English word day, namely the period of time from one sunrise to another. Of course, we already know that this isn't what is meant, since the Jewish day is from sunset to sunset, rather than sunrise to sunrise, but the point is that Genesis 2:4 proves, quite conclusively in my view, that literal 24 hour days are not the only possible meaning of the word. The "young earth' creationist should then respond by pointing to the "there was evening and there was morning" lines. We will then have to answer a lexicographic question (i.e., was Nachminides right in his claim that "evening" can mean "chaos" and morning can mean "order") and a genre question (i.e. do the genre conventions according to which Genesis was composed require a literal understanding of these words?) and I am not equipped at present to answer either of these questions.

I too continue to be unsatisfied with some of the explanations offered by evolution. The most problematic, as I see it, is that all of the pieces of evolutionary theory that have actually been observed in operation, and therefore "proved," tend to lead to less genetic diversity, never create new genetic traits, and never create new chromosome pairs, such that there is never a leap outside the genus. I don't believe that there is any chance that evolution exactly as scientists understand it today is a correct account of the origin of human life. However, my present understanding of science and of Scripture leave it open to question whether evolution might be on the right track with regard to human origins, especially because of the way God creates man out of the dust of the earth, rather than ex nihilo, suggesting that God used some sort of natural processes, or at least pre-existing materials.

Posted by: Kenny at February 13, 2006 1:13 PM

On a scrientific but non-evolutionary note:
Another thing to consider is that we're not sure what reference frame God is referring to- it could be one of an observing watching the earth from absolute rest with respect to the early acceleration of the universe, it could be in a reference frame experiencing the acceleration of the universe and not the rotation of the earth, or a reference frame on earth. I know many people would support the latter, but I don't think that there's anything in the text to exclude the idea that God was giving us an "outside" view into the creation of the earth. From relativity, we know that the time measured in each frame would be different. Just another idea I thought I'd throw out there for you.

Posted by: Lauren at February 13, 2006 4:44 PM

There is something to be said in response on Gen 2:4. I know no Hebrew, but what I've heard from someone who read a bunch of commentaries on this (most of whom didn't take the six-day view) told me that you can take the Hebrew to mean essentially "on the day when God had completed his creation". It doesn't necessarily mean God had created all these things on the same day.

Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at February 20, 2006 2:41 AM

It is true that science will never find anything that proves God doesn't exist - or our boat is sunk anyway.

A professor from Multnomah Bible once taught a Bible and science class at my church. He had a book in pre-print called "Genesis Unchained" which he never published as near as I can tell, which took nearly the same position you are mentioning

Genesis 1:1 can be seen as "The God who created the Heavens and the Earth - also did this". He talked about Hebrew word:

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): - X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.

This word is used over 200 times in Genesis alone; including being used as the word for Eden. Anyway, its curious.

As to Adam and Eve - science is getting there. There is very good scientific evidence that the whole human race owes its mitochondrial DNA to one woman. It puts Eden, or at least the survivors of the flood, in central Africa rather than the Middle East - but that is not really a theological issue that I can see.

Posted by: jchfleetguy at February 21, 2006 10:21 PM

Grrr - I've read a number of creation comments many perport things that are just not consistent with the Scripture. I have lots of questions for you, but I'll just ask this one. If you reject a 6 day creation how do you establish the federal headship of Adam? If you reject the federal headship of Adam do you also set aside the federal headship of Christ and reject the biblical teaching of substitutionary atonement? If you do not reject those teachings how do you reject a 6 day creation?


Posted by: Journey at February 26, 2006 9:29 AM

Journey, I don't reject a 6 day creation (yet), I just think that the scriptural evidence warrants a reconsideration of this view. It is clear, I think, that Christian theology requires that Genesis chapter 3 record a real event, that actually occurred historically, otherwise there could be no original sin. I don't know what you mean by "federal headship" (sounds far too much like the politics of modern republics to me), but if you mean something about all of us being responsible for Adam's sin, then I don't see how this has anything to do with a six day creation. This is not in chapter one, it's in chapter three. As for chapter three, the claim that it records a real event does not necessarily entail that it records this event literally As is shown in the article jchfleetguy pointed to above, some scientists now believe that all humans alive today must be descended from one set of parents who lived somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 years ago. Everyone agrees that there were first humans, one way or another. Christianity very clearly claims that these first humans did sin against God, and that we all bear the guilt for their sin. This is non-negotiable from the perspective of Christian theology, but throughout the history of Christianity and Judaism, even long before the development of modern science, many respected interpreters have questioned whether there was a literal garden, serpent, and fruit tree. This does not undermine Christian theology, and some principled and well-qualified scholars think that it is the correct (originalist) interpretation of the text. I think this view is worthy of our consideration based on the Scriptural evidence. We ought not to dismiss it out of hand.

Posted by: Kenny at February 27, 2006 10:24 AM

Post a comment

Return to blog.kennypearce.net