I quoted Walton somewhere in one of my articles who said interpreting Hebrew isn’t like eating in a cafeteria where you can choose whatever you want. That is what I see as a main problem with that translation practice.
The RTB model doesn’t deal with all the science problems and it generally denies evolution. In the end it attempts some pretty sophisticated linguistic gymnastics but without even critiquing them, it falls short.
Did God parade the animals in front of Adam in hopes of finding him a mate or not. Literal in that sense.
I think that’s a helpful distinction you’re drawing between modern and ANE concepts of truth, and I agree that authorial authority played a major role in how texts were received in that context.
Where I see it slightly differently is that acknowledging the ANE framework doesn’t necessarily mean the text has no relationship to objective reality—it just means that reality isn’t being communicated in the same categories or methods we would use today.
So when I talk about correspondence to reality, I’m not trying to impose a modern scientific standard onto the text or “upgrade” it. Rather, I’m asking whether what the text describes—however it is framed—might still reflect real features of the world, even if expressed in pre-scientific language.
I think that’s a fair observation—but I’d frame it a bit differently. The goal in that approach isn’t necessarily to use science to better understand the text itself, but to consider whether what the text affirms can help inform how we understand reality.
In that sense, it’s less about reading modern science into Scripture and more about asking whether Scripture provides a framework that can guide how we interpret what we observe in nature.
That’s closer to what figures like Richard Owen were doing, and how RTB tends to approach it—using the text as a conceptual lens rather than trying to force scientific ideas back into it.
I think where the disagreement may be is whether that kind of approach is legitimate at all, or whether interpretation should only move in the opposite direction.
I agree with Walton—it’s not cafeteria-style interpretation. Context determines meaning. My point is that Hebrew words have a range of legitimate meanings, and you have to look at how the passage functions as a whole.
Out of curiosity, did you get a chance to look at the material I shared in the opening thread that features an updated version of their model?
On your question about Adam and the animals, I think that highlights the deeper issue. The question isn’t just whether that event happened in a straightforward modern-historical sense, but what role that scene is playing in the narrative. Is it primarily describing a biological process, or is it making a theological point about human uniqueness, relationship, and the absence of a suitable counterpart?
So rather than choosing between “literal” or “non-literal” in a simplistic way, I think the better question is what kind of claim the text is actually making, and how its language is functioning within that context.
That response smacks of a desire to make the text say what one wishes. Fudging meaning to protect scripture by making it appear to match our modern worldview is no different than fudging it to appear to support a particular theological leaning – indeed both are idolatrous because they rely on the assumption that some current worldview is superior to the one through which God chose to speak!
Context tends to reveal that, and there is nothing in the context of Genesis 1 to call for any meaning but a normal day.
Besides which, appealing to those possible meanings looks like an attempt to smuggle in a correspondence with a MSWV (modern scientific worldview), which is inappropriate because such an attempt has to shove aside the original worldview.
Just let Genesis be the ancient literature it is and read it that way!
Because that’s not how translation works: you don’t apply an outside context to force meaning on the text.
Besides which, one of the big points of Genesis 1 - 11 is that “reality” is not something that corresponds to what our eyes can see and ears can hear, etc., rather that reality is what God is up to and Who He is and therefore who we are. A modern application of Genesis 1 would be that the way we see the world is not the way things are.
One might say about any human worldview as far as Genesis 1 goes is, “This is not the reality your’e looking for” (or something like that).
What confounds me about this discussion is that everyone is speaking of Genesis as if there were only one creation account. There are two very distinct creation stories at the beginning of Genesis. There is Genesis 1 (which ends in the beginning of Genesis 2) and Genesis 2-3. These are two very different accounts with very different purposes. How can we speak of them as if they were one and the same?
Genesis 1 tells us exactly how the universe and the earth came into being, as we now know that to have happened. The belief that it does not, comes from centuries of misinterpretation of the words of this amazing book. To begin, no action occurs in the first verse. That’s just an introductory summary. The earth does not exist in verse 2; it is without substance and without form. Nothing without form or substance exists in the physical realm. That means creation begins (surprise) with the first day – the creation of light and darkness and time. That’s the big bang. The second day is the expansion of the universe and the coalescing of the heavenly bodies. The third day is our earth. RTB misses the big bang and expansion of the universe but picks it up correctly after that.
The second creation story is more of a “fairy tale.” Wrong word, but I can’t think a better one. It doesn’t tell us what really happened, but tells us why things are the way they are. Why men leave home and form a new one, why we don’t still walk with God in the morning, etc. It even tells us why snakes don’t have legs (they used to, according to paleontology).
Take the text as it presents itself. And don’t fret about the 7 days. Einstein showed us that time stretches.
The only assumption it relies on is that nature and bible cannot conflict with each other if we believe what we believe to be true. However, this does not mean our interpretation of each domain can’t come into conflict with each other.
How so? I have never found any evidence that the text supports a normal day interpretation over any other definition or interpretation.
That is not how I would describe it. Instead, it is just making an inference to the best explanation (or interpretation in this case) and then testing to see if that explanation holds up overtime.
The goal in that approach isn’t necessarily to use science to better understand the text itself, but to consider whether what the text affirms can help inform how we understand reality.
In that sense, it’s less about reading modern science into Scripture and more about asking whether Scripture provides a framework that can guide how we interpret what we observe in nature.
That’s closer to what figures like Richard Owen were doing, and how RTB tends to approach it—using the text as a conceptual lens rather than trying to force scientific ideas back into it.
I think where the disagreement may be is whether that kind of approach is legitimate at all, or whether interpretation should only move in the opposite direction.
Your question is a good one and one I have given much thought to. But I think it requires a longer discussion. I have done my own research and developed my own understanding.
I come down on the side that scripture is less metaphorical. God does not use metaphors.
I have attempted to align Genesis 1 and 2-11 with evidence based on the research of others from physics and the applied sciences of archeology, paleontology, anthropology, and geology. The evidence is irrefutable and scripture must be examined in light of the evidence.I start with the premise that the Bible tells us what God did and why and science tells us how and when.
Shortly I will be publishing a book on this titled Reflections On Genesis. It covers Genesis 1-11 and explains from my perspective much of what your question entails. Some of my conclusions will be acceptable, others will be controversial in terms of the traditional understanding but they are the way I see it after examining the evidence and aligning with scripture. However one doctrine remains solid regardless of how one wants to interpret Genesis 1 and 2. Adam brought sin into the world and Jesus Christ redeemed us of it (Romans 5).
I know I am not to promote my books on this site and I am apologizing in advance but as I said this discussion is one that cannot be had in the space we have on this site.
Not what I was saying at all. The Bible, when it records naked eye observations, is a record of objective reality. When it records supernatural events then of course that is different.
No that reality (the natural world) is communicated just as we would today. Which isn’t to say they got it completely correct.
Is it the supernatural you are trying to fit into science?
The goal of the paper you provided was to use science to “better understand the text”, AKA interpret. I fail to see how an ancient text, with all the limitations that entails, could help us understand objective reality today.
That is in effect trying to use a poor quality/cloudy lens to better understand the high def photograph we currently have. Sure, if you look through the lens and squint just right you might think you are seeing more clearly, but are you?
To me, the only correct direction is to use science to inform me when I have the interpretation wrong. Keeping in mind that science doesn’t answer all questions.