No one actually reads the Bible literally. Some people think they do. When it comes to the issue of creation, the 'literalists' insist that a six day creation and a young earth are the only truly biblical position. But six-day-ers and young-earth-ers do not actually read the Bible literally. Disagree? Let me show you what I mean.
The creation debate usually centers on Genesis 1-2. However, these are but two chapters among several that speak about creation. Let us look a couple of the other places where creation is addressed.
Job 38:4-11: Apparently the earth is a building full with a foundation, bases/footings, and a cornerstone. "That is obviously a metaphor," someone would say. Really? It comes directly from the mouth of God. Not only that, but at the time, the earth was actually conceived of as a flat place with a foundation set on pillars (footings).
Psalm 74.12-17: When God created, he broke open the waters (separated the waters above from the waters below), and crushed the heads of the sea monster Leviathan. Again, that is obviously not literal, right? Well, if we are going to read Leviathan as literal in Job 41 (and most do), is he not literal here? Well, this is a Psalm, we cannot take anything in the Psalms literally, because it is poetry. Really? Genesis 1 is clearly poetic as well.
The point with citing these two passages is not to say that they are to be read literally. Rather, I mean to point out that Genesis 1-2 are not the only creation texts. I also mean to point out that none of us read everything the Bible says about creation literally. All of us should agree that the Bible talks about creation in non-literal ways.
To take this a step further, I do not think that 'literalists' actually read Genesis 1-2 literally. Disagree? Let me show you.
In 1.7 God creates a firmament. What is a firmament? Literally, the Hebrew term (raqia) refers to what you and I would call a dome, a firm (thus the firmament) spherical ceiling that holds up the waters above. As Genesis 7.11 suggests, the dome has windows so that rain can come from the waters above. Furthermore, 1.14 says the sun, moon, and stars are all underneath that dome. Literally speaking that is.
Genesis 2.4 refers to "the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The NIV and ESV fudge and put "When." But literally it says 'the day.' The day?! I thought there were 7, 'the days'. If we are being literal, how can God create on 7 days, and 1 day? Some will say, "Well if we look at Genesis 1.1, the day is the first day." Well then, literally speaking, God created the man on the first day, according to 2.7.
In Genesis 2, the creation order goes, the man, the animal, the woman. In Genesis 1, it goes, the animals, the people. Sure, the NIV and ESV again fudge the translation in 2.19 to say "had formed" instead of simply "formed." But make no mistake, the verb here is simply sequential, not a flashback. Literally speaking, how could this be true. How could God form many animals on day 5 before people, and form all the animals after the man?
What am I saying? No one reads the Bible literally. The 'literalists' only read two of the dozen or so creation texts literally, and then they even read those less literally than they claim. The point is simply this: literality is a quality that no position on creation truly has cornered.
Just some thoughts. I would love to hear yours...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The best analogy I can think of is that those who look to the Bible for a precise mechanism and/or timeline for how God created are like people who watch a football game for it's fantasy implications. They ask questions and look for answers that their text or game has no interest in answering. Genesis 1-2 were not written to answer ontological/scientific questions about the existence of the universe but to communicate significant theological truths to the wandering Israelites.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the Firmament by Gordon J. Glover is an excellent book that helps modern readers understand these differences.
Bern,
ReplyDeletethanks for your thoughts! good analogy with the fantasy football. it is almost like an entirely parallel sport but with the same games.
the question that this does pose is if the text is not fundamentally about addressing our questions, how do we properly apply the text to our situation? it may not be a rival science, but it does speak to our understanding of science at the level of application. i wonder how you see things functioning at that level.
If you mean our situation is that we desire an answer to the question "When and by what means did God create?" and God never intended to clearly answer that question in His Word then I guess we have to answer that question by looking at nature itself (as some have called it God's second book aka general revelation). I suppose that also means that contrary to a YE position, it wasn't (and isn't) a fundamentally important question to life, faith, or the Gospel.
ReplyDeleteMany fear the application of or implications of modern science to faith. True science cannot make moral, ethical, or spiritual applications. Rather than fear science for the applications some scientists make, Christians should offer Bibliclaly informed applications of the same science. In other words, a 14 billion year old Cosmos, Big Bang, and Evolution do not necessarily mean the Bible is false. On the contrary, they may uphold many essential Biblical doctrines (Big Bang especially). That what you're getting at?
Wow ryan, crankin it up a notch on us huh? I guess you need to get your money's worth from your education once in a while :).
ReplyDeleteSo I had this huge debate in our church plant and actually had a group leave not just over this issue but it was a big one for them. They were disturbed that we weren't taking a firmer stance on the literal 6 day creation, and the flood and so on. I said I probably believe in it but it doesn't effect my faith either way. They said, we just want to take the Bible "Literally". My response was, then why isn't your wife wearing head covering and why do you allow her to be vocal in our church meetings. If we are going do that, then let's be literal in everything. There wasn't much of a response following that.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteI guess this is cranking it up a notch. I sat down to right, and this is all that was on my mind.
Good point about being consistent. Often times it seems like people are "literal" when they like the implications of the text and then are not literal where the text is more difficult. We must have a more systematic and objective sense of what is literal and what is not than 'i like this, so i'll take it literally' and 'i don't like that, what else could it possibly be talking about?'
Ryan, I think the opposite side of "literal" also tends to interpret the Word with their "un-literal" bias when they do/do not like the implications of taking God's Word literally. I don't believe God wants any believer to read His words to validate what a person already believes to be true, but to seek out the truth, then stand on it.
ReplyDeleteI think how believers interpret the Bible shapes how they live out their faith in the essentials, the non-essentials, and ultimately in everything.
~Salyna
Salyna,
ReplyDeleteI agree. I think, actually this is the tendency of both sides. Those who call themselves literalists are only literal about those passages they like, not consistently. Likewise, many who are against literalism are against it because the truth of the text is offensive to them. Both are manifesting the same impulse, as you said, to interpret the text in light of personal biases, and to have their own beliefs confirmed rather than shaped. i guess my hope would be that we find some other system of determining what is literal and what isn't besides our preferences, feelings, biases, etc... We need some kind of objective sense of how the Bible is communicating its truth in a given passage, literal or otherwise.
I think something is being overlooked... The Holy Spirit. I believe that the Holy Spirit is God and indwells all believers and the same Holy Spirit that moved men of God to write the Bible. I believe He enables us to understand His words. IF we are all indwelt with the same Spirit and we are reading the same Word then shouldn't we come to the same conclusions... IF we are reading with NO bias?! Where does that breakdown begin?
ReplyDelete~Salyna
Salyna,
ReplyDeleteI think you've hit the point exaclty, there is no such thing as reading with no bias. not even the most spiritual among us overcomes our biases. the next best thing though is to recognize that we are biased and try to figure out how. the way we do this is by reading people from different places, times, and cultures whose biases while still present will be different from our own. maybe when we talk about the Spirit we should think of him not as the being who works in each individual to overcome biases and read the Bible perfectly, but the being who works in the community throughout history. Maybe the point is that no one person should ever read the Bible alone! That's my take anyway.
Or how about this, the creaion narrative is so perfectly written that we take away from it what is essentially true no matter what our position on creation is. Even YEC is just a vehicle for understanding our depravity despite being created in the image of God and what is only restored in Christ! Take YEC, OEC, or TE and you will still end up here - clearly the Spirit is in on that!
ReplyDeleteBern,
ReplyDeleteAnother good point! It is amazing that for all the heated debate, we still for the most part, get the essential doctrines, even if some of us are confused about which ones are essential.