Interpretation of Genesis 1

I have long considered the Genesis accounts should be see in relation to other pagan narratives of the Middle East and that it is right today to see Genesis 1-3 as theologically symbolic stories (or parables) not some sort of historical account at all. We then have no need to fit them with science or create the sort of either/or tension between them and modern science. The idea of being “inspired” by the Spirit does not need to mean a sort of heavenly infallible diction of pre-history to be taken in a literal manner. Some of the early church fathers used them allegorically and I think that is also true of Judaism past and present.

1 Like

Interesting. There IS a perspective that sees the Genesis account as a refutation of the creation accounts or “theories” that were believed during the era of the ANE in which Genesis 1 was first composed. It makes some sense (to me at least); after all, no one had coined the term “evolution” in 2000 or 3000 BC…and Charles Dawin had not been born. What can be “gleaned” from Genesis 1, at least, is that the Universe was no accident and was intenationally developed for a specific purpose — not as part of a quarrel between gods or some accidental thing — and man was created for relationship with the One Creator and not just meant to clean up after these gods in a polytheisitc universe, etc. Makes some sense to me.

Bill_II

How can something that is short and lacking in specifics be considered “precise language”?

Statements can be brief and precise at the same time and yet lack scientific detail.

“… the fact that birds are the descendants of land animals makes the birds first and then land animals sequence in Genesis incorrect.”

You are too picky. Consider the difficulty in describing the complex transformation of the earth and the evolutionary creation of life forms within 29 relatively brief verses.

1 Like

Cosmicscotus

You seem to approach Genesis 1 with a preconceived opinion of its objective.

I refer you to the Dropbox link to see how Genesis 1 is in harmony with modern science.

precise “marked by exactness and accuracy of expression or detail.”

No. It is you that asserts Genesis is correct “scientifically”.

Short answer, just get the sequence correct. If the author was truly inspired as you suggest then the sequence should be correct. In fact this isn’t the only example of getting the sequence wrong.

Correct but it has been from years of study of the subject

Why don’t you read it? What have you learned? What insights have you gained?

SkovandOfMitaze

The solid dome model of the world was an ancient theory because they did not have modern scientific knowledge.

The transformation of the earth in Genesis 1 does not contain precise sequences of biological forms and it should not be expected to go into that kind of detail in an overall account of the world’s creation.

A literal interpretation of Genesis 1 does not necessarily mean a Young Earth view. I agree that the Young Earth view is in conflict with science. I refer you to my Dropbox link to see a literal view of Genesis 1 that is in harmony with modern science.

1 Like

I did read it…it’s something he put forward for people to review. So why not check his perspective out? I’m trying to figure out why he thinks “that view” is the one that solves the problems and should be accepted by all. But that is another issue. Still, he did a nice job putting it together.

1 Like

So I just don’t see the point in checking out the drop box. Maybe later. But if you are arguing for a literal and concordistic view of genesis 1 that means we are to read it literally.

That means all of creation made in 6 days. That means creation made in the order mentioned. That’s just simply not accurate. I don’t see the point in reinstating the previous things.

It says plants , including angiosperms was made first.
Followed by fish and birds.
Followed by land animals including humans. Each of those happened in a day. Even if it’s changed to ages it’s out of order from what we see in the fossil record.

Cosmicscotus

Again, I refer you to the Dropbox link to my literal interpretation of Genesis 1, which is in harmony with modern science. I’d appreciate any comments you may have on the Concordist View PowerPoint program.

SkovandOfMitaze

If you are not willing in checking out the Dropbox link, you do not know what my Concordist View proposes and you risk misinterpreting my position on these creation questions.

Or it means you are misusing the terms.

I’m not going to download an app, accept cookies and blah blah just to carry on a discussion. It’s not necessary. Literal and concordism has meanings.

When somebody says that Genesis 1 is in harmony with modern science I don’t need to read more. But tell me what you have learned from this.

bluebird1

Thank you for checking out the PowerPoint program and your comment that it was a nice job.

In my understanding, the Corcordist View presented harmonizes well with modern science and therefore merits being acceptable as the correct interpretation of the creation account.

Patheos. com has excerpted an entry into the Dictionary of Christianity and Science that discusses “Bible-concordism”. If you don’t have the above named Dictionary, then check out patheos.com. The author got his degree at Dallas Theological Seminary… I like the conclusion

An alternative view in the origins debate agrees that in the end science and Scripture will accord in what they affirm. However, this position believes that we are missing the point when we try to read Genesis in light of modern science or to interpret scientific data in light of Genesis. Instead, we need to read the text in light of its ancient context for its original intent. In this view, the Genesis creation account does not affirm a position on modern scientific questions and so does not speak to the expected scientific issues directly (Miller and Soden 2012). Since Genesis 1 does not present scientific claims, such things as the age of the earth can be left to scientific investigation without needing to demonstrate specific correlation.

By John Soden (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary), who is a professor and program director of the Master of Arts in Bible program at Lancaster Bible College.

1 Like

Well, BeagleLady…I learned this person’s point of view. He came on the site to present his position and that is what this site is about. I cited an excerpt from Dictionary of Christianity and Science on this issue. I actually have that book but the article came from an online site (see below). Everything is online these days

I have found this obsession with chapter 1 of Genesis a little difficult to comprehend and my main takeaway from seeing it come up so many times is to better understand why so many have simply chosen to discard the idea of an historical Adam and Eve.

There is nothing in science to say that two particular people did not exist in some time in the past, so with little symbolism (with considerable justification in the text) the A&E story could be taken somewhat historically. But the fact that it follows an account in Genesis 1 which cannot possibly be historical, can be a good reason for not considering what follows in subsequent chapters to be very historical either.

And turning this around… perhaps the desire to take the subsequent stories as historical is what lies behind the efforts to force an historical understanding upon Genesis 1.

What, it’s too difficult for God to author a chronologically accurate paragraph and change the order of a few things? This seems to limit, lower and underestimate God to a point that makes me quite uncomfortable. If God is writing the text in the manner you suppose the order should be correct because God knows the order. If the order of creation is incorrect then God isn’t writing in the manner you suppose or God had nothing to do with this text. Divine accommodation or purely human work. Pick one.

You can argue God gave someone a vision and they mangled it but please don’t espouse plenary inspiration if you do so.

Vinnie

1 Like

I learned it too when he said that Genesis 1 is in harmony with modern science. You are free to engage with him, of course.