Are the opening chapters of Genesis really poetic?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

I’m not quite following you, here, @Jonathan_Burke.

You are saying that the Biblical discussion of a physical barrier (either tent-like or metal like) convinced you that the Bible was speaking literally?

Would this be like reading the story of Samson convincing the reader that Samson was an historical person?

Or… you mean that the discussion of firmament convinced you that the writer of Genesis BELIEVED there was a real firmament … and that he wasn’t just being symbolic?

The latter scenario seems to be what you seem to mean … without the full explanation.

Below is a section of text from the article recommended by @beaglelady:
.
.
.

Let me summarize some of the general arguments for why raqia is understood by contemporary biblical scholars as a solid structure:

The other cosmologies from the ancient world depict some solid structure in the sky. The most natural explanation of the raqia is that it also reflects this understanding. There is no indication that Genesis is a novel description of the sky;

** Virtually every description of raqia from antiquity to the Renaissance depicts it as solid. The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty;**

** According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 and 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);**

** Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid (Ezekiel1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4);**
** According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;**

** The noun raqia is derived form the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). This suggests that the noun form is likewise related to something solid;**

** Speaking of the sky as being stretched out like a canopy/tent (Isaiah 40:22) or that it will roll up like a scroll (34:4) are clearly similes and do not support the view that raqia in Genesis 1 is non-solid.**

The solid nature of the raqia is well established. It is not the result of an anti-Christian conspiracy to find errors in the Bible, but the “solid” result of scholars doing their job. This does not mean that there can be no discussion or debate. But, to introduce a novel interpretation of raqia would require new evidence or at least a reconsideration of the evidence we have that would be compelling to those who do not have a vested religious interest in maintaining one view or another.

- See more at:

http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-that’s-not-the-point/#sthash.q9bMylJs.dpuf

22

George,

I believe that Jonathan means that the Hebrews really did believe in the firmament and the other features of the ancient cosmology.

2 Likes
23

Yes. George has helpfully quoted the kind of statements I’ve made myself, and repeated what I already believe about the raqia.

I am saying that understanding that the raqia is described as solid convinced me that Genesis 1 was not intended to be understood as non-literal poetry. The raqia is not described symbolically as solid, or poetically as solid, or metaphorically as solid, or figuratively as solid, it is described literally as solid.

No, what I am saying is reflecting on the fact that the writer of Genesis 1 believed there was a real, solid, firmament (which was a position I already held), led me to the conclusion that it is unlikely the writer of Genesis 1 believed he was writing the kind of poetry or symbolic literature which should not be taken literally. He was writing first person eyewitness narrative of what he saw, and he meant it literally.

24

I agree with everything you wrote, @Jonathan_Burke.

Let the horns sound … let the scribes take note … for it will be many deep and long winters before the planets will be in such alignment again!

4 Likes
25

Jewish tradition is not scripture. Yet some Jewish traditions take a symbolic view of the rock not literal. The Apostolic Fathers reject a literal “following rock” but are silent regarding the Jewish traditions. Augustine rejects the ‘rock literally’ followed them by interpreting the meaning of the following to include the rock, manna, living bread, cloud and pillar of fire: “For they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and that rock was Christ.”

The Apostle Paul says that “they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them.” Referring to the “rock” as also “spiritual” and then identifying it with Christ seems further to support what was suggested as to the meaning of this word. But to what is Paul referring?

It is common to see this as a reference to a popular rabbinic interpretation of Num. 21:16–18, to the effect that the well (known as Miriam’s well and shaped like a rock) accompanied Israel in the desert, serving as a continuous, miraculous source of water.

Although several legendary features attached themselves to this tradition as time went on, there can be little question that in its basic form it goes back at least to the time of Paul. From this point in time it is difficult to assess the relationship of Paul’s statement with this tradition, especially since he refers only to the “rock” and the rabbinic traditions gathered around the “well” in Num. 21. What they have in common is an understanding of the wilderness experience of Israel in which God continually supplied miraculous water as he did bread. Beyond that we are left to our best guesses, although it is not difficult to understand how such a tradition arose, especially in light of the texts noted above (1 Corinthians 10:3–4a) that joined the miraculous bread and water as they referred back to these events.

Paul seems to be referring to a common tradition of the continual supply of water; but his interest is not in the water but in its source, the rock, which he goes on to identify with Christ.

Paul identifies the rock with Christ and this serves his double aim:

(1) to emphasize the typological character of Israel’s experience, that it was by Christ himself that they were being nourished in the wilderness;

(2) Thereby also to stress the continuity between Israel and the Corinthians, who by their idolatry are in the process of repeating Israel’s madness and thus are in danger of experiencing their judgment. How much by this identification Paul intended to stress Christ’s preexistence is moot, but it seems far more likely that he uses the verb “was” to indicate the reality of Christ’s presence in the OT events than that he sees him there simply in a figurative way.

Because Paul refers to the rock as being Christ in a figurative way, this doesn’t necessarily mean that Adam and Eve are to be treated figuratively when referred to by both Paul and Christ.

26

I have no complaint with your exegesis, but It would be obnoxious if I claimed you only came up with it because you didn’t like the idea of a literal rock following the Israelites around, so you looked for something that fit your preconceived notions better. If God can miraculously provide food every day, why couldn’t he have miraculously provided water? When people propose a non-literal interpretation of Adam and Eve that they think makes a lot of sense exegetically, some people always say, "Well, you just made that up that because you are so committed to X, Y, Z. Maybe, but not necessarily.

27

Surely Bio-Logos treats Adam and Eve as real and evolved - not figurative or myth - with prior death present and no fall of creation?

28

Actually Biologos (the org), is pretty flexible on the whole Adam and Eve thing.

1 Like
29

I appreciate the interaction very much.

Let me respond to just a couple of items.

First James asked about a definition of inerrancy. I’ve found Wayne Grudem’s definitions in his section on ‘The Word of God’ in ‘Systematic Theology’ to be most helpful. He defines the concepts of authority, inerrancy, clarity, necessity, and sufficiency of Scripture from Scripture itself. The definition of inerrancy is this: ‘Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.’ While it is true that no original manuscripts of the Bible - or for that matter any ancient document - exist, the manuscript evidence for Scripture is heads and tails beyond anything we have historically in the ancient world. I believe what God has left us here with is not perfection, but superior clues to perfection which, like all of creation, require faith, which is a gift from God.

Beyond that, I am intrigued by Bill’s assertion that ‘all we have is interpretation’. Not true. 2 Peter 1:20-21, Proverbs 8:9, 2 Peter 3:16, Psalm 111:10, 1 Corinthians 2, for example, indicate strongly that there is objective truth that can be understood beyond our own individual interpretation, by the Holy Spirit, and requiring our own willingness to hear and obey what the Lord says, lest we distort it by our own shortcomings.

That leads me to respond to Jonathan’s reminder that Biologos is ‘pretty flexible on the whole Adam and Eve thing’. Therein lies the problem. The New Testament writers were not unclear on this, namely, understanding Adam and Eve as real, literal, historical people - and we should be clear on this as well. This must be a basic a priori assumption by which we interpret creation, not vice versa.

30

In short, I would say that we do not want to find ourselves in the unenviable position of trying to explain why the Bible doesn’t actually mean what it actually says.

31

There is no BioLogos “position” on Adam and Eve.

And you can think Adam and Eve were real historical people and still believe the account in Genesis is mythologized to a certain extent or reject the idea that they are the biological ancestors of all currently existing humanity.

32

The term “kind” in Genesis does not reconcile with the idea of evolutionary change. I encourage you to read this: Philosophers' Corner: Theories of Change and Constancy

33

Most biblical scholars recognize that the Bible contains many different literary forms - history, poetry, metaphor, hyperbole, simile, prose, etc. The challenge is, of course, trying to decided how the ORIGINAL authors intended a book or passage to be read and interpreted. And I’ll grant that most moderate and liberal scholars interpret the start of Genesis as poetry or even myth. But just because we might interpret these passages this way does not mean that the ORIGINAL author(s) wrote them to be interpreted that way.

Many (most?) Christians insist that the Bible is the very Word of God, that these passages in Genesis do NOT reflect the limited understandings of the beginning of the cosmos by the ancient Israelites, but, rather, that Genesis is GOD’s REVELATION of exactly how he did it. And if this is indeed the case, then, IMO, Christianity and science cannot be reconciled. Science has demonstrated that the accounts of creation found in Genesis cannot be historical. And this raises a big problem. If God is God, and if God actually wrote the Bible through human scribes, why did God not reveal to these scribes the truth that the universe is 14.5 billion years old? Why did God not want to reveal the truth that humanity (and all life) came about through evolution (even theistic evolution)? Why didn’t God tell Moses to write down in Genesis that humans and apes come from a common ancestor? Why didn’t God, if he wants us to know the truth, tell Moses to write that Genesis is really poetic, not historic? Granted, the original authors may not have used these categories, but this is that much more reason for God to communicate truth so that it can’t be argued and fought over. When I want people to know truth as best as I understand it, I make sure to be as clear as possible in my communication. The fact that it is not at all clear how historical we can take the Bible demonstrates that God may not be as concerned with making himself clear as we wish him to be. And that is troubling.

34

My comment was in response to marktwombly who said “This is not and cannot be true of the Bible since a) it (not our interpretations of it) is unchanging, …” What I meant was our understanding, or interpretation if you will, of the Bible can change and that is all we have. How the Holy Spirit uses our understanding of the Bible is a different story. When you read a Bible in English you may not be aware of the tremendous amount of fallible, human effort that went into that translation. And while the original manuscripts are inerrant, their translation is not. And all we have is the translation or interpretation of the texts.

35

I would say the authors write with the intention that the book will be read and understood. Interpretation requires that you first come to grips with how the book was understood by the original readers and then you can work out what it means to us today.

I believe God did communicate truth. The truth is Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” That is what was important.

36

But you aren’t writing for people thousands of years in the future.

1 Like
37

@Bill_II: True, Bill, but we don’t know how the original readers would have read and understood Genesis. Jesus, who might be key, seems to take Adam and Eve as real people. Paul certainly seems to take the Fall as a literal event in history. So how can we, in our modernity, classify it as “poetic” when Jesus and Paul believed it to be historical?

@beaglelady: That’s my point exactly. If Genesis is “the very words of God”, then why didn’t God, being God, write it in such a way that ALL people for ALL time could understand the accounts as ontological truth i.e. the way it REALLY happened? The goal of a good communicator is to be able to get his/her ideas across to ALL audiences. So if Genesis was written, not to us, but only to ancient Israel, then, IMO, we have no business dealing with the book. We have to relegate it to ancient history. Does Christianity really want to take that approach?

38

Of course the Bible is written for all people, not just ancient Hebrews. But it isn’t a science textbook; it reflects an ancient science in its message of faith. A lot of us don’t have any problem understanding that. We only stumble when we expect the Bible to be a book of scientific facts.

39

Jesus never mentioned Adam. He only referred to marrage.

Paul’s reference can be taken as literal or symbolic. It is a matter of interpretation.

Interesting how you said “seems” twice and then came down on the side of historical. To me if the references are historical there would be no “seems” to it.

40

@beaglelady, I guess that is one of my…struggles. When I was young, I was taught that the Bible was inerrant and infallible, which, in my understanding, meant that everything in the Bible was factual (perfect truth). As I grew up, I wanted my worldview to rest more and more upon nature, science, reality as reality evidences itself. For me, too much of religion relied upon superstition (believing in things for which there is no or little evidence, believing in things which make no logical sense). So when I eventually discovered that the Bible is not factual (scientific or otherwise), it not only made me question the reliability of the Bible as a source of truth, but the reliability of the God who is claimed to have written that book as a source of truth. For the record, I still believe in a Creator. And I believe for many of the reasons that Dr. Collins cites. And I still like many of Jesus’ teachings and example. But when Jesus says that my epilepsy, which is kept under control via modern medicines, is caused by demons, I really struggle with having faith in a book that is supposed to be truth, but doesn’t line up with the truths we know.