Does the Truth of Genesis 1-11 Depend on its Historical Accuracy? | The BioLogos Forum

Faith & Science Conversation
16

@BradKramer said:

Honestly, if God had given Moses (or whoever) a scientifically accurate origins account, wouldn’t God’s Word have failed to accomplish its original purpose of communicating truth to the Israelites.

This seems a bit short sighted don’t you think? Couldn’t God present an idea that can resonate with everyone in all eras? We should not be deceiving ourselves to thinking that Genesis 1-11 isn’t a major reason people abandon the Bible. So while it worked great for the original recipients, it has near caused devastation for us. That’s why BioLogos exists….because there is a problem.

1 Like
17

@BradKramer
Think of the example of the Flood. If the authors were drawing on an ancient belief in a global historical flood, and yet the Flood was in fact a local event, is the Bible lying to us?

In my opinion the author or more likely authors of Genesis were “historians,” and what historians do is work with historical sources. When they wanted to understand the past they looked to the best source of that information, which for them was the ancient middle eastern Semitic culture this of course was the culture of Abraham.

The problem was that this culture was pagan, rather than Yahwist. Therefore the role of the Hebrew historian was to see the known history through their faith, which they did very well. Thus we should say that the important thing about Genesis is not what happened, but the role of God in history.

The purpose of God’s word is not to convey Truth as historical facts, but to convey Truth as the God Who acts in and through history.

God uses the story of the Flood to reveal Godself to the Hebrews and us, and since this is the purpose of the Bible, it is not a lie, even though historically there was no universal flood.

God uses people as they are and stretches them to what they can become. The Bible is not perfect in every way, just the most important way, which shows how much God cares for humans, Again the Bible is not a book of science or history, but a book of God’s revelation of Godself.

2 Likes
18

@Relates I think that is extremely well put. I completely agree.

19

How do you know this to be true? Why are “truth as historical facts” different from “truth as the God who acts in history” different from each other? Why can they not be the same? How do you know that God acts in history? When you say that historically, Moses never led his people to Canaan, yet God delivers his people and keeps his promises, how will you be able to know that? If God did not historically promise not to repeat a world-wide flood, will you still have confidence that he will not permit one?

20

@johnZ

The problem with the Flood was that the historical sources that the Biblical historians had to work with were flawed. They indicated the Flood and humans survived the flood in an ark, but not how this happened. The inspiration from the Holy Spirit came in how they filled in these gaps to make this a Yahwist history rather than a pagan one.

The question is not how do we know this is right, but is it right? Does the revelation of God found in the story of Noah correspond to the revelation of God found in the rest of the Bible and in particular with that of Jesus Christ? That is a question you need to answer for yourself.

I will point out a part of the story that is troubling and that is the Curse of Canaan. As you know after the flood Noah got drunk and fell asleep in the tent naked. His son Ham saw him and as a result Ham’s son Canaan was cursed to being the father of a servile race.

While the taboo concerning looking at the naked parents may have been real, the penalty seems extremely harsh and strangely is applied to the son and not the father. What appears to be more germane is that fact that the Hebrews conquered the homeland of Canaanites. This curse was also used as a rationale for the slavery of Blacks in America who are descendants of Ham.

Thus there arises the question as to whether or not a self serving bit of tradition might have crept into this story that really did not belong. Again God did not curse Canaan, but Noah did backed up by God. I might mention also that the origins of the other peoples in Genesis tends to put the Hebrews in a good light.

It should also be noted that Jesus reversed the Curse of Canaan when He healed the daughter of the Canaanite woman after discussing with her whether He should grant her request.

21

I moved 4 posts to an existing topic: Is Jesus the God of the Old Testament?

22

Brad, to your core question," Is it possible for a passage of Scripture to still be true and authoritative even if it is written about an event that the authors thought was historical, and yet is not historical?" I would say yes you can find truth in a work of fiction. All the great works of fiction tell of some truth about the human condition. It’s the authoritative part that troubles me. We look to the Bible for authoritative answers to our questions. Often though, the answer can be ambiguous. It all depends on how a passage is interpreted. So it’s not much of an inerrant authority without an inerrant interpreter.

In the Middle Ages the Church was the authority in things spiritual. When the Reformation came along and rejected the authority of the Catholic Church the reformers needed to replace it with something else, the Bible. The only problem was that the many understandings of what the Bible is teaching has led to many denominations. We have no final or ultimate authority because everybody is free to come up with their own interpretations and find a church that agrees with them. If your church hires a woman as Pastor and you don’t think they should because of your understanding of the Bible then you are free to find another church. But if you are deciding what the Bible is saying about something then you are the authority as much as the Bible is the authority. So it’s not much use to have an inerrant Bible without an inerrant interpreter.

23

I wonder if our understanding of ‘accurate’ is being used consistently. For example, Animal Farm is a story about talking farm animals. Talking farm animals do not exist and to that extent the story is “inaccurate”. On the other hand, its message about totalitarianism is widely accepted as true so that, insofar as totalitarianism is concerned, Animal Farm is famously “accurate”.

As for either of the Genesis creation stories, I am skeptical of claims that the ancient Hebrews reacted to these stories as if they reflected physical reality. Part of my skepticism arises from the nature of biblical Hebrew - a language that depends on symbolism and metaphor far more than the more semantically rich English or Greek. The ancient Hebrews, by virtue of their language, would be much more attuned to the use of symbolism than we do (a modern, post-enlightenment, English audience). My skepticism also is rooted in the structure of both stories, especially the first. It’s cadence, its majestic prose, its references to a figure-of-time so completely at odds with experience would have immediately signaled to the audience that here was a story whose meaning was symbolic, literary in nature, not factual.

With respect to your question - “how could [the ancient Hebrews] understand an inaccurate account”; the answer, it seems to me, is that they understood the creation stories as literary myths, not literal, historically accurate accounts. Nahun Sarna and Robert Alter explain better than I that the truths arising from allegory and metaphor are often more profound, richer and affecting than the mere recitation of history.

In other words, the ancient Hebrews understood the creation stories as metaphorical, not literal. And that, it seems to me, is the answer to your question.

Blessings,

24

I apologize for being late to the conversation, but I only just found (and joined) Biologos. I’d like to respond to your core question with another: why would we assume that the authors of the flood story (or the Genesis creation accounts) were reacting to what they believed to be an historical (actual) event? Perhaps I’m missing some context here, but I might point out that a fair number of scholars (Nahun Sarna, Alter, etc.,) would argue that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are largely a reaction (a polemic really) to the prevailing myths of the cultures surrounding the ancient Hebrews. The prime example supporting this argument is the many parallels between the Genesis 1 creation account and the Enuma.

Anyway, super topic and I wish I had found this site earlier.

Blessings,

25

@mtp1032 Hi Michael, welcome to BioLogos. Glad to have you. :smile:

I like Sarna a lot, so I want to tread carefully here. As stated in the post, my primary goal is to understand the text on its own terms, not simply to conform it to any external standard of truth or untruth. So, when I look at the flood story in its ancient context, I see no reason not to believe that writers and hearers of Genesis had a historical, global flood in mind. Certainly they were also shaping that story to match their understanding of God as creator and redeemer, and also as a polemic against other ancient cultures. They weren’t primarily trying to be historians, for sure. But none of this means that they didn’t think of the flood as a real, global event, on some level.

Genesis 1 offers many similar examples. For instance, verse 6 talks about a “vault” in the sky that holds back the ocean above the stars. Now, we know that such a vault or sky ocean does not exist. But the writers of Genesis probably did. I know that some people want to say, “well, they were just responding to other cultures, they weren’t actually trying to give us a scientifically accurate picture of the universe.” But this seems like a stretch to me. Certainly, they weren’t trying to write a science manual, but this doesn’t mean they didn’t share in ancient, pre-modern beliefs about the shape of the universe.

None of this destroys the authority of the Scriptures, but it forces us to re-examine what we mean by “authority”, and what we expect to find in the Bible.

26

What you are describing is a typical approach, Michael, so I understand it well. But let me propose to you a different perspective. It has often been said, that things are not true because they are in the Bible; they are in the Bible because they are true. The presumption is that the Bible will not contain untruths, because it is against the nature of God, the Spirit, and the writers to put untruths in scripture. Okay, maybe you agree with that.

Metaphor is true in the sense of what it is trying to convey, assuming that it portrays truth. A metaphor of untruth would not be true. In the case of animal story, we quickly understand that the conversation of the animals is supposed to represent something else, just like the parable of the father of the prodigal son represents God interacting with his children. From there on, the conversation makes sense.

Making Genesis one into a parable or metaphor, rather than a telling of events, is like making God represent God, and first man represent first man, and world, water, sun represent world, water, sun. Because there is not a transition to a metaphorical form, we cannot know what the point of the metaphor really might be.

While it is true that certain cultures use more symbolic language than others, or use language that is more “couched” in indirect language, possibly in order to reduce emotional conflict, this is more cultural than language based. Some backwoods cultures are incredibly subtle in their communication, but when you understand and are accustomed to their use, you realize it is only subtle for outsiders, and not at all subtle for those who speak such in a daily way. It is possible to be either very direct, or very subtle in English, as well; it depends on the user and the context and the culture. This is why some people are very insulted by language that other people do not even perceive as significant.

Your comment about Hebrews understanding an inaccurate account is possibly valid, but in some way misses the point that many EC argue that Genesis 1 was written the way it was (inaccurately) because the Hebrews would not have understood the science (present day knowledge of space, etc.). This is an invalid argument because if mere understanding is the criteria, then certainly they would not have been able to “understand” how man could be created from dust, or in fact how everything could be created so quickly, or how light could exist without the sun. Understanding or lack of understanding (in otherwords, historical culture) is not a valid argument for why Genesis is written the way it was.

Finally, what evidence do you have that they understood the creation stories as metaphorical? Why would they have a reason to do so, if they did not have knowledge of nature that would contradict the facts of this story?

27

@johnZ wrote:

Finally, what evidence do you have that they understood the creation
stories as metaphorical? Why would they have a reason to do so, if they did
not have knowledge of nature that would contradict the facts of this story?

If you don’t mind, in the interests of space I’ll restrict my answer to the 1st creation story. This story is manifestly metaphorical/symbolic for a number of reasons, five of which are:

  1. Numerology is everywhere in the first creation story (click here for examples). If you’re suspicious of numerology, I would recommend Umbarto Cassuto’s “A Commentary on the Book of Genesis”, Kindle locations 468-505). By the way, as you are no doubt aware, numerology was widely used among the ancient Semitic authors (not just the Hebrews) to express metaphorical concepts. Thus the numbers 7, 3, etc., are purposefully incorporated into their texts in order to signal to the audience meanings that are NOT to be found in the literal text. Again, Genesis 1 is rife with numerological (sic) references.

  2. Speaking of numerology, the motif of creation over a seven day period (actually 6+1) was widely understood as a metaphor for completeness. The same motif occurs in the Enuma Elish and both of these works would have been immediately understood by their respective audiences as symbolic in nature.

  3. The lyrical tone, pace, and language contructs are as close to Hebrew poetry (w/o being poetic) as occurs in the Bible. Indeed, parts of the story are manifestly poetic (e.g., 1:26-27 and 2:1-3).

  4. Speaking of 2:1-3, the structure and grammar of these verses (3 fold repetition, the use of the pual form of the verb meaning completion, vay’khullu) are obvious when read/heard in Hebrew and would have alerted the audience that there is more to the story than the literal words. For a more detailed description of the symbolism of verses 2:1-3 - and its representation of the Sabbath you may want to read these two articles Lost In Translation I and Lost In Translation II.

  5. The representation of time! In Genesis 1, time is represented differently than anywhere else in the Bible. Yom (day) and Layla (night) are represented as regions of space, not periods of time (see here). The author represents time in this manner presumably in order to express and convey the transcendence of Elohim (think of a film editor viewing a scene frame by frame, perhaps editing frames as necessary). By showing time as a region of space, the concept of an entity outside of that space would have been immediately obvious.

In summary, Genesis 1 is manifestly metaphorical and would have been easily understood by its audience, steeped in the language, customs, and culture of those days. I hope this answers your question.

Blessings,

Michael

28

I disagree, Michael, and perhaps later I will explain why.

29

Just a few quick points:

I agree in part. My [inconsequential] disagreement with your statement above is that the biblical text does not describe a global flood (e.g., the whole world). In the Hebrew the text describes a local flood. Notwithstanding the extent of the flood, I think you are correct. The author uses the flood to construct his narrative. This is very common in all of the writings of the ANE (Ancient Near East). ANE historical narrative, for example, is always triumphalist. When Joshua conquered Canaan, everything was wiped out. His was a genocide of epic proportions. This simply the way ancient authors wrote history and is, more often than not, completely at odds (quite knowingly) with reality.

Brad, this is not quite correct. Verses 6 & 7 describes the expanse ( רָקִיעַ) as separating the waters above (rain, clouds) from the waters below (terrestrial water such as rivers, lakes,etc.,). Accordingly, you may find this commentary of interest. [ASIDE: this is yet another example of how the biblical authors express literal concepts (rain, clouds, rivers, lakes, etc.,) using broad, figurative language.]

As for the authority of scripture I do not quite understand why one’s understanding of the Bible would (or would not) destroy the authority of the text. If physical reality contradicts the Bible, then the most likely explanation is that we do not understand the biblical text. At the end of the day, it is hubris to fear (and reject) the truths of science for the sake of the one’s understanding of the Bible. After all, all of us are of a culture based on Western thoughts and are three thousand years removed from an Ancient Near Easter culture with a vastly different world view.

Blessings,

Michael

30

Michael, although we use the term “creation stories”, we should understand they are really two parts of the same story; they are not two contradictory stories. Just wanted to clear that up.

  1. The problems with saying that numerology is everywhere, is that that provides no explanation for a particular number or its derivation. Yes, there are significant numbers, but most of them in scripture have some basis. So seven is significant because it derives from days of the week, in particular the creation week. I think you are trying to say it happened the other way around, that God decided to create in seven days because he knew people would like that number. Perhaps you would argue that we don’t know how many days it took, and the writer of genesis merely used that number because it seemed appropriate. Of course we would have to know why seven is a number of completeness, and not six or eight or ten. Otherwise it would seem most reasonable to assume that seven is “complete” because the creation week was “complete” on that day. And this then became the basis for the regular seven day week.
  2. If the seven day creation is the original account, then it is not surprising that the number seven took on significance in other cultures as well.
  3. You admit that Genesis one and two are not poetry… using poetic syntax and pace is certainly legitimate in a history. It is possible to combine poetry and accuracy, although admittedly more metaphors and similies and exaggerations are often used. However, to call the entire episode an allegory, that’s different. That does not even require poetry, but it does require a context, and a hint, such as an identified story teller who explains the real meaning, and usually an audience. An example: if someone were to say that “I love her sheep”, vs “I love her teeth”, then one could not understand the metaphor of sheep for teeth, unless it was previously made clear, that her teeth are like sheep. (Song of Solomon)
  4. Many serious Hebrew scholars have indicated that genesis was written as to be understood not to be an allegory or metaphor. This is particularly true for the use of the word “yom”, as well as the entire context and language of the story. Certainly if the story was clearly meant to be a metaphor or allegory, then these scholars would have rejoiced in the simplicity and advantage of such a conclusion.
  5. Although we can realize that God created time itself, yet this is the first time I have heard this conjecture, that time equals space in this account. It seems to make more sense, that time would be time, and space would be space. There is no sense to having seven regions of space, especially since all the activities occurred in the same space.
31

Thanks for the dialogue, JohnZ. I’m afraid this will likely be my last response as we’re leaving on vacation on Monday and I have much to do to get ready.

Numerology: Irrespective to how the numbers came to have symbolic significancem they do and we cannot ignore them and expect to understand the meanings the author is trying to convey. Understanding the figures of speech used in a particular text is to take it seriously (and objectively). In Genesis 1, the symbolism is obvious and to ignore it (or worse, write it off) is to miss the intent of the author. Finally, I reject your notion that the symbology needs to be explained (or signaled somehow) to the audience. George Orwell doesn’t explain the metaphor of Animal Farm.

I agree that there exist scholars that wish to understand Genesis to be factual (i.e., something not allegorical or metaphorical). I do not find their arguments to be compelling, if only because they violate physical reality and ignore the plain meaning of the Hebrew text. To believe that the Genesis I stories are factual is to believe that God is magician whose incantations violated the very laws He created.

The idea that time is not part of the Genesis 1 story is not mine. It comes from the text. Read Genesis 1:4-5 again. While you and I think of day and night as periods of time characterized by the presence of absence of light, the text of Genesis 1 literally says that light and dark are regions of space; i.e., they are spatially not temporally separated. Simply read the plain meaning of the text. It’s quite straightforward.

Blessings,

32

Its funny that in this case you want to be literal, so literal as to reverse the separation of day from night? Day separated from night is separated first of all not by space, but by quality (light and absence of light), then second by time, and then in a way that may not have been understood at the time, but still factual, separated by space…as on opposite sides of the globe. However, all three aspects are literal, and address the fact that although light was created, darkness could still exist in time and space; darkness did not totally disappear. However, even though this was true that light and darkness was often in different places/spaces which could only reveal at different times, this does not somehow validate changing the actual meaning of “day” into “space”. The evening and morning description make the sense of time most significant, relative to the appearing and disappearing of light. It does not equate to space such as sense of darkness one might find in a deep cave or cavern. Separation in time is just as valid a concept as separation in space, and time is clearly indicated, especially by evening and morning.

I do agree that sometimes numbers may have a symbolic meaning, but it is ludicrous to superimpose this on the creation since the creation would be the origin of numbers, of meanings. To derive a creation from numbers is to make the story less meaningful, not more meaningful. The story describes the beginning of the significance of “seven”, which from then on becomes a special number. Yes, of course God is a magician, the only real true magician who can actually create natural laws, time, and space, and make things appear. None of this contradicts or violates his laws, because he is the lawmaker. We have no right to judge God as to his laws. In fact that is the very premise on which he sent his son to die for us, that he overcame the law of death. And we also know that creation itself was the beginning of the laws of nature, and in that beginning, when laws were not yet established, but were being established, God brought forth life.

I hope you have a great vacation… safe and fun!

1 Like
33

Oh happy, happy day. It looks like we won’t be leaving for vacation until late tomorrow. So, bear with me once again.

But, rather than reply point-by-point, I think the larger issue here is how differently you and I read the text. Let me explain how I view the first (and second) creation story: I would begin with a simile (Animal Farm is like Genesis 1). Note that we do not read Orwell’s Animal Farm to learn about how to raise animals and harvest crops. When you studied Animal Farm in your Lit class, had you written a critique of the farming described in Animal Farm as false and inconsistent with what farmers know about farming, you would have received a ‘F’. Why? Because no one who reads Animal Farm thinks it’s about farming or raising barn yard animals. No one has to tell the reader that Animal Farm is not about farming. It’s self evident from the first page. Animal Farm was written to be a strident polemic against Soviet Totalitarianism not that putting pigs in charge is the right way to run a farm yard!

If literalists read Animal Farm the way they read the first creation story, they would indeed conclude that Animal Farm is about farming and that a well run farm would have talking pigs in charge of the other animals.

In the same way I argue that the first creation story is not about creation. Creation is the literary device (the plot, actually) used by the [inspired] author to reveal God to the ancient Hebrews (and us). He does this using a variety of literary techniques one of which is to satirize and demythologize the pagan gods. In a very real, literal sense, the first creation story is a polemic against the pagan gods of that time just as Animal Farm is a polemic against Soviet Totalitarianism. The sequence of the creation events is structured to reveal God as transcendent (outside of time), authoritative (by virtue of His creative power), and judgmental (i.e., having expectations of His creation). Because God is transcendent, the author reveals that God makes mankind in His image granting him God’s authority to rule over His creation (see Footnote) here on earth. We are to do His will where the creation is concerned.

This view has the advantage of being perfectly consistent with scientific knowledge and is not at risk of being contradicted as scientific knowledge advances. Another huge advantage for we evangelists is that when explained in this way, the Genesis creation stories raise no red flags vis contradictory views of science and theology and can be appreciated by layman and scientist alike.

Blessings,

Michael
FOOTNOTE: Being made in the image of god is a common motif in many of the creation epics of other Mesopotamian and Egyptian cultures (see Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary, p 12). In those other stories, bearing the image of a god was a badge of authority, proof of the delegation of divine ruler ship. This is why the ancient authors of other cultures described their rulers and kings as bearing the image of the god that created them. The author of Genesis also uses this motif in a surprising, unique, and original way: where other cultures describe their king as bearing a divine image, Genesis democratizes this idea. God reveals to the Genesis author that all human persons bear this image. All of us, not just our ruler(s), have a responsibility for God’s creation. The familiar Ancient Near East symbolism of the image of the divine is used by the Genesis author to reveal that God has delegated authority to us. We are His vice-regents here on earth and are responsible to Him for the management of His creation.

34

I would like to point out that Peter Enns has a blog post about the book Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters. I think it’s worth checking out.

35

I think you have not demonstrated that Genesis 1 is like Animal Farm; just saying it is, is no more valid than just saying it isn’t. As I said before, “Making Genesis one into a parable or metaphor, rather than a telling of events, is like making God represent God, and first man represent first man, and world, water, sun represent world, water, sun. Because there is not a transition to a metaphorical form, we cannot know what the point of the metaphor really might be.”

In Animal Farm we have various animals representing different people and different archetypes. We know this because animals do not speak, nor form governments, nor carry on the types of conversations as in Animal Farm. We do not have to guess, and there is no debate. On the other hand, in Genesis 1, we have God representing himself, God. We have creation representing itself. We have light, earth, water representing themselves. Plants, fish, birds, animals representing themselves. So far the metaphor is lost on me. Then man… who does he represent? why himself also. Again, no metaphor.

So, you might argue probably, that the only metaphorical part of the thing is the term “day”, which might represent a space of time, although of course according to evolutionary theory, the species were not clearly separated by either space or time (maybe partly separated for awhile sometimes). Or day could just be a concept with no meaning whatsoever… which makes it a real interesting metaphor which has no purpose whatsoever, and thus makes the metaphor useless for anything as far as teaching us is concerned. Well, Animal Farm would be considered to be a metaphor for all times and ages and cultures; it would be understood not to be a literal reality of animals actually speaking and running a farm. But Genesis 1 would not be considered a metaphor, since it had generally been considered for at least 4 or 5000 thousand years to be an accurate account of the beginning of creation.