Is a fully metaphorical reading of Genesis truly necessary for theistic evolution?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
1

I’ve been thinking about how different Christian perspectives approach Genesis in light of modern evolutionary theory, and I’d be interested in hearing how people here think about it.

From what I understand, many theistic evolutionists adopt a more metaphorical or allegorical reading of Genesis in order to integrate it with the scientific picture of evolution and deep time. That makes sense at one level, especially given the historical and literary context of the text.

At the same time, I’ve come across some updated work from particularly the Reasons to Believe community that tries to explore whether certain aspects of Genesis might still be read in a way that is more closely aligned with current scientific understanding—without necessarily requiring a fully allegorical approach.

What surprised me wasn’t so much the conclusions, but the idea that some of the tension might depend on how we’re defining key terms (both scientifically and in the Hebrew text), and how flexible those categories might be. For reference, here is that work:

OSF | Supplementary-File-1.pdf

So I’m curious how others here think about this, especially if you read their work:

  • What do you see as the main reasons for adopting a more metaphorical reading of Genesis?

  • Do you think that approach is necessary given current science, or is it more of a hermeneutical preference?

1 Like
2

Certainly, Hugh Ross and RTB are respected by me and most here, even if we disagree with some of his positions. He does a lot better with his cosmology than his biology, as you would expect. My answers to your questions are mine alone, but will give it a go. I did scan your link, but will admit I did not read it closely, as it seems similar to other papers I have read.

As to your first question, I think adopting a more metaphorical reading of Genesis is more comfortable for me in that it eliminates the obvious conflicts between scientific observations and the narrative. While it is possible to fit some of the language and timeline in a sort of reasonable fashion, there are aspects that simply do not fit, and we are left with a Frankenstein interpretation made up of parts that do not go together and are incompatible with one another. In short, the problem is not solved of reconciling a literalistic reading with what we accept as observable truth. A more metaphorical reading eliminates that problem by holding that Genesis is not trying to teach science or give a concordist account, but rather that it is a revealing of who God is and how we fit into the picture.

2 Likes
3

That is what the original author intended and what the original audience would have understood. Slathering on a layer of science (even if it is good science) is a very human addition to the text.

A hermeneutical preference for sure. And hermeneutical preferences are again a very human addition.

3 Likes
4

Two things come to mind immediately;

1 If God wished to create the Garden and contents as written then it would have happened regardless of any incongruities, be they scientific or othewise.

2 Was Scripture written by God or men, for the use by God or men? It was written before much of modern knowledge existed and therefore cannot be expected to take such knowledge into account. Dismissing it as allegorical, metaphorical, or something unreal is to misunderstand the purpose of Scripture.
That said it would seem pointless to try and rectify Science with Scripture.
Any attempt to impose restrictions n what God can or could have done is to misunderstand what Scripture (and God) are about.
So where is the problem?

Richard

5

What I see here is an excellent example of “The question is wrong”: one does not decide how to read a piece of literature on the basis of some other ideas, one decides how to read a piece of literature based on what sort of literature it is!
I see no reason whatsoever to “[adopt] a more metaphorical reading of Genesis”. It’s not that kind of literature; indeed such a thing is contrary to the context. And I see even less reason to make such a choice “given current science”; science has nothing to say on the matter of how to read any literature.
As for “hermeneutical preference”, hermeneutics starts with context, which in the case of literature means asking “What kind of literature is this?”

Reading Genesis metaphorically is an invitation to basically making it mean what the reader wants it to be. That shows no respect for the text, or for the writer or for the original audience, let alone for the authority behind it all.

The trouble is that we today don’t have any of the literary types they used back then, and the temptation is always to read something according to some familiar pattern. Early Genesis was read allegorically throughout much of the church for that very reason: because allegorical writing and reading was common, so they approached the text according to what they knew. That’s also misguided, but it has the one advantage that treating it allegorically comes a lot closer to the way it was intended to be read.

“Truly necessary”? What’s necessary is to read Genesis according to the kinds of literature its different parts are – that’s the way to approach any data, according to what it is, and is thus “scientific”. That said, don’t try to read it as science, either – that’s the same mistake as reading it as any other kind of literature that it isn’t.

As to what it really is . . . that I leave to another post.

2 Likes
6

I’m definitely curious about what those aspects may be that apparently don’t fit. However, if you have not read the article yet, then it might not be the best course of action to lay out those examples on here.

7

The reason I subscribe to a more allegorical/literary interpretation of Genesis has more to do with understanding Genesis as ANE literature. Once you start to study the book of Genesis and compare it to other texts and understand the ANE culture in which it was produced, most concordist readings feel more like you are trying to read foreign ideas into the text that the original authors wouldn’t have known about or found important. It is also kind of condescending since it subliminally assumes that ancient people needed us to correctly interpret what God was “actually saying.”

That being said, when I first identified as a theistic evolutionist/evolutionary creationist, I essentially held to the RTB interpretation of Genesis 1-2, though added that I though God used biological evolution. I think it is possible to interpret Genesis 1-11 as literal history and I am not saying that some of it couldn’t be literal history (I do think that somehow Adam was a real historical figure, perhaps an ancient Mesopotamian chieftain or early priest-king, and that the Flood did happen even if it was only a local event in the Mesopotamian basin). Nonetheless, I think that if you focus more on the literary and theological aspects of Genesis 1-11, rather than treating it mainly as a historical or scientific description of cosmic origins, you get much more out of it. In a way, I would say that scientific discoveries have improved our understanding of Genesis by forcing us to come up with better interpretations that reveal more about who God is and our proper relationship to creation.

3 Likes
8

I see what you’re saying, and I agree that understanding the ANE context is important for interpreting Genesis responsibly. At the same time, I don’t think that necessarily rules out the possibility of deeper meaning or divine inspiration that goes beyond what the original audience would have fully grasped.

From my perspective, if Genesis is divinely inspired, then it’s at least possible that it conveys truths that aren’t exhausted by its immediate historical context. For example, passages like those in Job—where God challenges human understanding of creation—suggest that there may be aspects of creation that transcend what people at the time could have fully understood.

So I wouldn’t frame it as “correcting” the ancient authors, but rather as exploring whether the text might carry layers of meaning that become clearer over time.

9

That still leaves unresolved the issue of those times the Bible is direct conflict with scientific fact. Why would God put instances of hidden scientific knowledge into the text, and leave such things as claiming the kidneys are the center of our deepest emotions and feelings? Of course, he used language the people could understand, and accommodated their beliefs in communicating his message for them. And, of course, they were as intelligent as we are, and not everything they believed was wrong about nature, so there are going to be a lot of things that are correct in their beliefs. But those also are accommodated in God’s word, and it does not mean it was hidden knowledge waiting for the scientific revolution to bring it to light.

At one time, I was in the camp that held that the Bible spoke to hidden scientific things as a part of God’s revelation, with such phrases as in Genesis 1 where “let the land produce…” was indicative of support for evolution, but have come to see that as more poetic and the concordism being either more just an obvious natural progression or perhaps just chance rather than an purposeful inclusion of hidden knowledge, which speaks a bit to gnosticism we all are attracted to at times.
Anyway, it is all a journey, and we learn as we go along. And to paraphrase a favorite quote from Jayber Crow, it will take a lifetime to learn. And perhaps a little longer.

4 Likes
10

I have never been able to understand why some people believe there is hidden knowledge in the Bible. Knowledge that was hidden for millennium until humans developed the ability to “unlock” the mystery. Why were the untold numbers of Christians denied this knowledge? As @jpm says it smacks of gnosticism which still lures Christians away.

1 Like
11

Well, this all depends on which literal definition of a Hebrew word you are using.

12

I understand that concern, and I wouldn’t describe it as “hidden knowledge” in the sense of something secret that only a few people can access. I agree that would lean toward a kind of gnosticism.

What I’m suggesting is a bit different—more like progressive understanding rather than concealed meaning. The core message of Scripture has always been accessible, but that doesn’t necessarily mean every layer of meaning or implication was fully understood at every point in history.

For example, even within the Bible itself, there are places where earlier texts are later understood more deeply or in a broader context. That’s not because the truth was hidden, but because human understanding develops over time.

So I don’t see it as earlier Christians being “denied” anything essential, but rather that as knowledge of the natural world increases, it can sometimes shed new light on aspects of the text—without changing its core message.

1 Like
13

I can live with that. Especially as Jesus often showed scripture in a different light than the religious people of the day thought of it.

2 Likes
14

Granted it doesn’t match gnosticism completely since it is knowlege going from hidden from everybody to being visible to those that understand science (which is a large percentage of the population, but isn’t everyone). So it is gnosticism-like.

Since it is science that is being added to the text you are suggesting a progressive understanding of a concealed meaning. Without science there would be no progressive understanding and the meaning would remain concealed.

I have to ask, if it isn’t essential what is the point? To me the point appears to be to make the Bible “true” in the modern sense of the word to make it more palatable to modern readers.

Can you provide any example of this? Other than pointing out the parts of the Bible that are wrong I can’t think of any that enhanced our understanding of the text.

15

Since Gen 1 and Gen 2 are two very different stories at least one of them must be “mythical drama” (however one defines that). While the order of Gen 1 can fit a rough order of evolution Gen 2 cannot.

I assume both are a form of allegory or parable in my thinking about Franciscan theology.

1 Like
16

A literal reading is inconsistent with scientific knowledge. Many people think science is accurate but also that the Bible is inspired and what it intends to teach is accurate. Thus, a metaphorical reading is an attempted harmonization between science and faith, motivated primarily by science. I find it odd that Christians would critique the GAE as “harmonization” while they are undoubtedly engaged in the very same practice with their metaphorical reading which is based on the principle that “scripture is true.”

Seeing all of Genesis 1-11 as metaphor devoid of any history is not necessary or consistent with what scripture intends to teach elsewhere. Seeing some of it as metaphor and some of it as history is. Here is a piece I wrote on reconciling Adam and Eve and original sin with modern science. It includes the flood as well. In my opinion, the Bible and Christian faith as a whole believes in a literal Adam and Eve and should if they profess inspiration in any of its common forms.

We are justified in reading much of Genesis 1-11 as a metaphor or as ancient polemic but not all of it. This is due to the density of anthropomorphic conceptions of God in that section. This has sections that while they don’t address it directly, I think show why ultimately the RTB model is not the most adequate.

Vinnie

17

Yeah, don’t look for science there – wrong worldview.
We have been blessed over the last couple of generations with a deluge of material showing what the culture, worldview, and literary types of the ANE were, and when you fit Genesis into those slots it suddenly makes a lot more (and more powerful) sense. The two Creation stories are total put-downs of ANE religion, not merely tidy stories with no more message than “God made it all”, and the same is true of the rest of 1-11.
Scientific discoveries shouldn’t “[force] us to come up with better interpretations” but make us realize that science isn’t important to the accounts at all, and drive us to seek the original interpretations, something we can now do better than anyone in two millennia!
“Proper relationship to creation” is right – Genesis tells us we are the center, not as the focus but as the place/beings where God touches Creation: we are the kings, we are the priests, to everything else.

18

That’s more in line with how figures like Richard Owen approached things, and how RTB tends to frame it—not reading modern science back into the text, but asking whether scientific findings align with or are illuminated by the broader framework Scripture provides.

Out of curiosity, did you get a chance to look at the material I shared in the opening thread?

I think I see what you’re getting at, but I’d frame it a bit differently. The goal isn’t to make the Bible “true” in a modern sense, but to explore whether what it describes can meaningfully correspond to reality—even if it isn’t written in the form of modern scientific or historical language.

Not being written as literal history in a modern sense doesn’t necessarily mean it has no grounding in real events. It may be communicating real aspects of history or reality through a different kind of literary or conceptual framework.

So the question isn’t really about making it more palatable, but about how different kinds of truth—historical, theological, and structural—relate to one another.

The example I am about to give is coming from the article I linked on the opening thread and it is located on Day 6 in the Genesis account:

1. Humanity in the Image of God: The phrase “in Our image” (Genesis 1:26) is understood to mean humans are spiritual and rational beings, endowed with self-consciousness, abstract thought, and a unique spirit capacity that distinguishes them from other animals, morally aware agents, and entrusted with stewardship over creation [3].

2. Formation and Awakening: Genesis 2:7 portrays human creation as a two-stage process: first material formation within the earth, then spiritual awakening. This implies that humanity’s physical form preceded its spiritual and cognitive awakening.

3. Distinction Between Humans and Hominins: After Genesis 1:25, “beasts of the earth” are no longer mentioned among the other categories of living creatures. This narrative shift suggests that human physical form belongs to the same created order as the animals — yet what follows in verses 26–27 introduces a radical distinction: the imago Dei, or divine image.

Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA was shown to be distinct from that of modern humans [28]. The limited genetic overlap (1-2% nuclear DNA) between modern humans and Neanderthals [28] can be understood as biologically constrained admixture that does not erase the theological distinction between image-bearing humans and non–image-bearing hominins. In this view, the imago Dei was preserved exclusively in humanity. This pattern can be compared, in theological discussions, to the Genesis 6 account of the Nephilim, which describes a short-lived and anomalous crossing between distinct orders of beings (“sons of God” and “daughters of men”), followed by separation. The Hebrew phrase translated “daughters of men” consistently refers to humans, whereas “sons of God” can refer either to humans or to angelic beings, allowing for multiple interpretive possibilities [3].

19

I think that depends a lot on how “literal” is being defined, especially in the context of Biblical Hebrew.

Hebrew has a much more limited vocabulary than English, and many words carry a range of literal meanings depending on context. For example, the word yom (often translated as “day”) can refer to a period of daylight, a 24-hour cycle, or an unspecified span of time—even something closer to an epoch.

Because of this, the issue isn’t necessarily that the text itself is inconsistent with science, but that readers may assume a narrower definition than the original language supports. In other words, the translation into English isn’t the problem—it’s how we interpret those translated terms through an English-centered lens.

So when people say a “literal reading” conflicts with science, part of the disagreement may come down to which legitimate meaning of the original Hebrew terms is being applied.

I will just reiterate my point before. Why is it necessary if you can just choose a different literal definition of a given Hebrew word?

20

Yes.

Modern truth is “the conformity of statements, beliefs, or propositions to objective facts and reality” so trying to make it “meaningfully correspond to reality” is turning it into modern truth. The ANE concept of truth is based on the reliability/authority of the person making the statement. So an authorative person saying there are windows in heaven is accepted as true. Trying to explain the windows using thermodynamics to explain rain formation doesn’t do anything to add to the text.

But the rub is a history written with no or minimal grounding in real events was still taken as fully true if it was written by a person of authority. Which is one reason there is so much pseudepigrapha.

And this example shows how science is used to support a particular interpretation of the text. It doesn’t really help us understand the text better. And just before this section the mention of trilobites and dinosaurs doesn’t help us understand a text which doesn’t mention them and in fact never really defines what it means to be nephesh. Unless of course you are trying to make the text conform to reality better by wedging them into the text. And BTW the particular interpretation they are trying to support is progressive creation.

1 Like