Archive for April, 2012

Creation: when is a day not a day?

Posted: April 7, 2012 in creation, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
0

I went to a Christian school from 7th grade all the way to graduation.  It seemed like the only argument between Christians and non Christians was evolution vs. creation.  Every Christian science textbook had page after page of details, analysis, and debunking.  One time, I even argued for evolution just to annoy my science teacher and try to make things a little interesting in class (as a teacher now, I profusely apologize for antagonizing my teacher and have paid in full for all the Melchizedek questions I have gotten).  This is why discussing whether the days in Genesis 1 are literal or not is such a powder keg of a question.  People don’t just see it as a question about one chapter, but see the whole creation vs. evolution debate as riding on this interpretation.  I might as well give myself a paper cut and pour lemon juice on it rather than tackling this issue.

The main options that I have heard about Genesis 1 are: 1) Atheist- dismiss the whole Bible as myth and legend, especially the book of Genesis; 2) Theistic Evolutionist- believes that Genesis 1 is not literal, but a poetic expression that God created everything; believes God used evolution to accomplish creation; 3) Age theory- day isn’t a 24 hour day but should be seen as an “age” being thousands of years; 4) Gap theory- between day one and day two, there is a huge gap of time allowing for either long spans of time or the “restoration theory”; 5) Figurative days- Genesis 1 is a poetic way to express the truth that God created everything and it was “very good” (how long this took is unstated allowing for options on how old creation is); 6) Literal days- God literally took 6 days to create everything and rested on the 7th day.

First, we need to discuss the literal vs. figurative debate.  Many people have told me that the figurative approach is very harmful and dangerous.  They say, “if you don’t take Genesis chapter 1 literally, then you can’t believe the rest of the Bible.  I believe the Bible is literal and true.”  I can understand their heart, but as a method of interpretation, their statement doesn’t work at all.  The Bible is full of figurative language and passages that are meant to be taken figuratively.  The mistake that they make is assuming that literal and true are connected in a way as to make figurative and untrue as the necessary opposite.  However, things can be figurative and true!  It is just that the truth is contained within (or underneath) the figurative language.  For example, I am not literally the “body of Christ”.  Jesus had a real body.  Figuratively, I am the “body of Christ”, as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 12 that the “body of Christ” can mean the church.  We take the “body of Christ” figuratively in 1 Corinthians 12, but we take it as truth.

How do we know when something is figurative or literal?  We make that decision all the time when people are talking or when we read literature like the Bible.  It is true that Genesis is historical narrative (stories) and so it is MOSTLY to be read literally (there really was a man named Abram who left his home).  However, there are parts that are to be taken figuratively (like the expression “Adam KNEW his wife” or Pharaoh’s dreams that Joseph interprets”).  The age debate is different in that it argues about the Hebrew word for “day” having different meanings, and is not arguing about whether it is literal or figurative.  So, is Genesis 1 to be taken literal or figurative?  You would have to look for evidence or clues that Moses meant it to be taken one way or another.

I won’t be discussing the atheist, theistic evolution, or gap theory in this post (or maybe ever since I am a science moron), but in deciding literal or figurative, it does affect the whole range of options.  I have never felt the gap theory has any credible evidence, and the first two options necessitate believing in evolution, which some Christians don’t.  The largest clue in figuring out how to interpret Genesis 1 comes actually from Genesis 2.  Everything is created in Genesis 1, but then it seems like we start all over again in Genesis 2.  Not only is the story of creation repeated, but parts of the story seem to change.  For example, in Genesis 1, man is the last thing created as the climax of creation.  In Genesis 2, God creates man and then creates all the plants for man to garden and after that, different animals as company for man.  Why is the order changed?  The formula that starts the story in Genesis 2:4 “These are the generations of the heavens” is one that is repeated again in Genesis 5:1 to introduce the transition to Noah.  It is almost as if chapter 1 doesn’t fully belong with the literary style of the book.

I am NOT saying that Genesis 1 was added later or is not authentic and from Moses.  I am just saying that there are differences and contrasts that we can’t ignore.  This may be the biggest argument for seeing chapter 1 as using a figurative form of communication.  That would explain why we have two stories with “contradictions”.  We have both a figurative and literal description of creation.  Since the first is poetic, it is not meant to be exact in chronology, but beautiful in its art.  The point is that God was the creator, it was all “very good”, and man was the climax of His creation.  Then, chapter 2 gives the literal account to explain the purpose of man, plants, animals, and marriage (two genders), and begin the story of the Fall.  From this point on, the number 7 will be used often figuratively as the number of perfection or completion.  So, even if chapter 1 is figurative, there would still be literal truth contained in it (like God as creator).

As always, you must investigate this for yourself and make your own decision.  I would maintain that this choice DOES NOT necessitate that you fall into any of the main views that I listed above (there are way more options, but this is supposed to be a blog, not a encyclopedia).  People take chapter 1 literally, but still see lots of figurative parts of the Bible.  People take chapter 1 figuratively, but aren’t evolutionists at all.  I know for some people the whole creation vs. evolution thing seems like old news, and we “post moderns” have moved on from this trap to discuss more important issues like saving the spotted owl, but this is still very important.  Understanding how to interpret the Bible is also key.  Whew, I need a break from this deep stuff.  Time to move on to Top 10 “Real” Bible question #6 “What is God doing with Israel today?”.  At least this question doesn’t have much drama…

The flood- legend, myth, or the truth?

Posted: April 5, 2012 in The Flood, Top 10 "Real" Bible Questions, Topical Studies
2

Let’s be honest for a moment.  The list of hard to believe parts of the flood story are many: how did all the animals fit on the boat? wouldn’t they try to eat each other? why hasn’t science found more proof of a global flood? how can you believe in the flood and be a young Earth believer?  Added to this is the fact that although it is a story of horrific judgment, American culture has seen fit to use it for children’s toys and crib bumpers.  How can you take something seriously when there is a Little People version of it?  Just yesterday, I was laughing up a storm watching Evan Almighty, the Steve Carell comedy based on the Flood story.  It didn’t make these questions go away.

There are two common questions that I get about the Flood.  1) Do you really believe that the Flood was global?  isn’t it more likely to have been just a regional flood?  2) Most ancient cultures have a flood story/ epic/ legend.  Isn’t it likely that the Bible “borrowed” from this common mythology in order to teach about the serious nature of sin?  Of course, this is taking it for granted that students believe the Bible and don’t simply dismiss the Flood story as not believable.  (By the way, the stories about people finding remnants of the Ark on Mount Ararat are not helping!  Get a life! Go back to looking for the Ark!)  Let’s tackle the myth angle first, and then move on to the more complicated one about local vs. global flood.

It is true that several other ancient cultures have flood stories in their mythology.  The Babylonian myth of the Epic of Gilgamesh from the Enuma Elish has been the most popular one used to show how the Bible “borrows” from other cultures.  The oldest copies found are on cuneiform tablets dated to the 12th century B.C.  Liberal scholars were quick to point out that the oldest copies of the Hebrew Old Testament date to the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest being from around 250 B.C.).  Most believed at this point that the Bible originated during the time of the kings at the earliest, post exilic at the latest (around 700 – 500 B.C.).  Therefore, they concluded that the Bible was written at least several hundred years after the Babylonian Enuma Elish.  The parallels between the two stories include:  the flood occurring in Mesopotamia; the main character is warned and builds a boat to escape; the boat comes to rest on a mountain after flood; and birds are released to see if it is safe to disembark.  Even I must admit that the similarities are too great to be merely coincidental.

First, I believe that the Flood story and Genesis were written long before the oldest copy we have found dates to.  Using 1 Kings 6:1 and Exodus 12:40, the Bible clearly states that the Exodus happened around 1446 B.C.  Since Moses is given as the author of the entire Pentateuch, he would have written the story of the Flood down around this time, way before the Enuma Elish was written.  I have no problem saying that someone “borrowed” from someone else, I merely maintain that it was the Babylonian legend that borrowed from the Biblical account.  Moses got the account passed down from Hebrew oral tradition, and it isn’t difficult to imagine this being passed from the Hebrews to the Babylonians, where the story was adapted into the Epic of Gilgamesh.  I actually believe that the multitude of flood stories in other cultures gives more weight to the truth of the Bible, as the other cultures corroborate the original story did actually take place (a common shared experience before these people groups descended from Noah’s sons).

As to whether the flood was local or not, I won’t attempt to make a huge scientific argument.  I am not a scientist (although I have played one on tv) and you can find other excellent blogs and sites that help you in that area (which is why I won’t be touching the whole “did the flood happen at all” scientific debate).  I will say that from Scripture, it would seem that it was a global flood.  Genesis 7:19 says that the “waters covered the mountains” and it is hard to see that happening from a local flood.  Also, Genesis 9:19 shows that Noah and his family were the only survivors.  If the flood was only local, other people would have survived.  Last, if the flood was only local, why couldn’t God have saved Noah a lot of time building the ark, and merely told him to leave the area???

Science is great, but the bottom line is that it can’t explain everything in the Bible.  That is why we use the word “supernatural” to explain certain events like the flood or people raising from the dead (and talking animals too).  God can make animals do whatever He wants, can figure out how to flood the whole world, and can decide how to divide up a super continent (if one actually existed).  We need to stop trying to always “prove” miracles, while at the same time appreciating how creation speaks of God all the time.  I am all for Christians who are astrophysicists as long as they don’t try to give me a natural explanation for how people can walk on water.  The Flood happened, killed everyone but Noah and his family, and God showed the harsh penalty of sin, while also showing His great mercy in saving anyone.

Don’t go and throw away all your cute Noah stuff just yet.  At the same time, I would seriously reconsider your plans to make those Bubonic plague baby crib bumpers.  Next up on the blog, Top 10 “Real” Bible Question # 7, “Are the 7 days of Creation in Genesis 1 literal or figurative?”  No biggie, just the whole theory of Creationism is on the line…

Newer Entries