Is Genesis Narrative or Metaphor? - Page 2

weinhold · #41 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 09:04 PM

I'd love to continue this conversation, if you folks think it will be profitable.

DMcFadden · #42 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 10:53 PM

Paul,

I deeply respect the highly nuanced and intellectually satisfying hermeneutic that animates your points. For most of my ministry, I found the Day Age (and even more satisfying) the Framework theories as ways to follow Calvin's principle of accommodation, allowing the truth of Scripture to speak (i.e., "lisp") in language that could be true and meaningful without denying the "truths" of science.

Frankly, in several academic programs, NOBODY ever gave more than a snide dismissal to the idea that the universe could be anything other than 20 billion (during my college years), 16-18 billion (during seminary), or 13.7 billion (the current estimate) years old. In fact, a belief in young earth creationism was often associated with the most ignorant kinds of fundamentalism.

So, with B.A. (Biblical studies), M.Div., D.Min., M.A.O.M., and a couple of certificate programs in hand, I blithly stuck with the Hugh Ross type approach to science.

Meanwhile my mainline denomination continued to move further and further away from basic orthodoxy. Even some professing to be "evangelicals" began to defend gay marriage and ordination of practicing homosexuals. My battles with the theo-left kept coming up against the fact that my own highly nuanced hermeneutic with respect to Genesis 1-11 sounded a awful lot like the arguments being used by some to argue for revisionist views of human sexuality. Ultimately my judicatory (270 congregations) withdrew from the national body.

My uneasiness with saying that "The Bible 'says' this, but it really 'means' that" in Genesis precipitated a re-examination of the evidence regarding creation. I have found greater satisfaction in the presuppositional apologetics of the Answers in Genesis group and the arguments they have advanced for taking the Bible literally from the very first verse.

And, just yesterday, I returned from a conference in Denver dealing with radioactive decay and the age of the earth sponsored by another creationist group that uses a more evidentialist approach. They feted a number of PhD scientists to discuss their RATE project results. They pointed out that C14 with its notoriously short half-life of 5,730 yrs. should not even be found in a measurable form in anything older than 60k - 100k. Yet, we have significant quantities of C14 in coal samples from different strata dated hundreds of thousands of years to hundreds of millions of years ago by conventional "experts." C14 can even be found in diamonds supposedly millions of years old!

Further, the findings of goodly amounts of helium in zircon crystals defies the conventional dating schemes. U238 decays naturally, resulting in helium and lead. Heat seems to accelerate the diffusion of helium from zircon crystals. The model was tested with assumptions of a recent creation and an old earth. The helium diffusion rates conform exactly to the young earth model and are off by a factor of several hundred thousand from the old earth model, even when adjusted for different assumptions for heat.

One of the presenters in Denver discussed accelerated radioactive decay. He has done work on gravitational time dilation as a way of dealing with the distant starlight problem using Einsteinian relativity theory equations to predict a young earth. Historically, many have argued that the fact of starlight from distant stars militates against a young earth.

Another project by this same organization has the inventer of the genetics technique used in virtually all of the genetically engineered crops in the world to argue that the mutations and degradation in the human genome will not tolerate a human history of more than a few thousands of years.

All of that is quite interesting. However, it does little more than to show that one can take the Bible in a straight-forward manner without committing intellectual suicide. However, as I mentioned, the Answers in Genesis crowd takes a different approach framing the issue in terms of one's presuppositions and worldview. I appreciate their clear framing of the matter in terms of assumptions even if I do not fully subscribe to all of their Bahnsen-esque apologetic.

But, they make a very sound point. If we concede that Genesis does not mean what it says in chapters 1-3, and if there is no universal flood, no tower of Babel, etc., why should we believe that it should be taken any more literally in the New Testament? While yom may mean many things, it certainly means "day" in Exodus 20:11 when God's creation of the world in six days is linked to the institution of the Sabbath. Jesus did not just accommodate himself to the ignorance of the day and speak with a wry smile and a wink in his eye, did he? Nor did Paul take the need for the Second Adam any less literally than the problem occasioned by the first Adam.

caddy · #43 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 11:06 PM

Excellent Post Dennis!

DMcFadden · #44 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 01:15 AM

Actually, the process of taking the Bible in a more straight forward way also carried over to my soteriology. For years I was a Baptist who waffled on the number of points of Calvinism I believed ("guess" which one was my problem, duh!). The hermeneutical shift away from old earth creationism came along with a much belated reconsideration of the atonement. Thanks to the good efforts of people like Sproul, Piper, and Owen my entire theology began to take on a much more consistent (I would argue "biblical") cast. Incidentally, R.C. Sproul (sr.) credits RTS's Kelley for his own shift to young earth creationism from his earlier endorsement of Ross's progressive creationism. I am probably the only person alive who came into Calvinism via an argument about Genesis. Nevertheless, here I am.

2 Tim 4:2 · #45 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weinhold;306306/

I admit that I bridle over words of evangelical etiquette like "inerrant" or "infallible." I bridle because strident theological debate--necessary though it was--has hollowed the life out of them and made them mere passwords for entry into the clubhouse of evangelicalism. They are lazy words, and they are insufficient words.

I disagree. Mens use of the words are merely that. The nature of the words do not really change only the intention of mens hearts. Setting aside any perceived misuse of these words what then would be your inhibitions to using such words?

shackleton · #46 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 12:52 PM

I have noticed that a belief in an old earth naturally leads one to believe in death before the Fall, death then is not a punishment for sin. Death no longer being the result of sin, but a natural occurance, slowly erodes away a belief in the seriousness of Orginal Sin. Then the belief that we are not that bad and the way to fix it is a sort of "psychological gospel," one that deals with the effects of sin, rather than sin itself.
It is sort of a man centered way of looking at it. If all of life got here by chance, then all of our lives now tend to be governed by chance, God is not necessary. Even if God started things running and dealt with the consequences, he is still not very involved. It erodes sovereignty. It seems like the natural outflow of a "Free Will" hermeneutic.
I hope that is clear.

k.seymore · #47 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Shackleton said "I have noticed that a belief in an old earth naturally leads one to believe in death before the Fall, death then is not a punishment for sin. Death no longer being the result of sin, but a natural occurance, slowly erodes away a belief in the seriousness of Orginal Sin. Then the belief that we are not that bad and the way to fix it is a sort of "psychological gospel," one that deals with the effects of sin, rather than sin itself."

While Calvin didn't believe in an old earth (if I remember right, he only interacts with two options, instantaneous creation vs. 6-day) he certainly says life was temporal before the fall, he just doesn't call it death. I thought this was interesting because we normally think that it would have been continuous earthly life, but he seems to think about it differently. Adam's earthy life would have ended, but that end would be a beautiful transition into heavenly life, not an end of life altogether. In regard to God threatening death to Adam, Calvin says, "under the name of death is comprehended all those miseries in which Adam involved himself by his defection..." Here is more from the commentaries on Genesis 2:

"But it is asked, what kind of death God means in this place? It appears to me, that the definition of this death is to be sought from its opposite; we must, I say, remember from what kind of life man fell. He was, in every respect, happy; his life, therefore, had alike respect to his body and his soul, since in his soul a right judgment and a proper government of the affections prevailed, there also life reigned; in his body there was no defect, wherefore he was wholly free from death. His earthly life truly would have been temporal; yet he would have passed into heaven without death, and without injury. Death, therefore, is now a terror to us; first, because there is a kind of annihilation, as it respects the body; then, because the soul feels the curse of God. We must also see what is the cause of death, namely alienation from God. Thence it follows, that under the name of death is comprehended all those miseries in which Adam involved himself by his defection; for as soon as he revolted from God, the fountain of life, he was cast down from his former state, in order that he might perceive the life of man without God to be wretched and lost, and therefore differing nothing from death. Hence the condition of man after his sin is not improperly called both the privation of life, and death. The miseries and evils both of soul and body, with which man is beset so long as he is on earth, are a kind of entrance into death, till death itself entirely absorbs him; for the Scripture everywhere calls those dead who, being oppressed by the tyranny of sin and Satan, breath nothing but their own destruction. Wherefore the question is superfluous, how it was that God threatened death to Adam on the day in which he should touch the fruit, when he long deferred the punishment? For then was Adam consigned to death, and death began its reign in him, until supervening grace should bring a remedy."

weinhold · #48 (**permalink**) 09-18-2007, 01:47 AM

Dennis and Mark, thanks for your replies. I'll be sure to interact with you tomorrow. For tonight, I have a (his)story for B:

Quote:

Long ago, around the time of Beowulf, the prince of Russia, whose name was Vladimir of Kiev, decided it was time to establish a national religion. To accomplish this task, Vladimir sent envoys to the three major religions: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. When his emissaries returned, they reported back to the prince. The first emissary reported on Islam, and when he said that alcohol is forbidden for Muslims, Vladimir said, "this must not be the religion for Russia." When the second emissary returned to give his report on Judaism, he said that the God of that religion had scattered his people, so that they had no land of their own. Vladimir did not think this could be the religion for Russia either. But the official from Constantinople, having seen the Hagia Sophia, said to Vladimir, “We know not what people believe in that faith, but when we entered into their house of worship everything was so beautiful that we knew not whether we were on earth or in heaven.” At that moment, Vladimir knew that Christianity was the right religion for his people.

B, I'm not sure if you've ever thought of beauty as a motive for conversion, but the Russians certainly did. They recognized that Christianity is not simply a logical religion; it is a beautiful one. As I've been commenting in this thread regarding Genesis, one reason I am captivated by Scripture is its aesthetic quality, and I think the same could be said for the Christian faith in general. Just some food for thought.

***

Know that you have my deep respect for honestly grappling with ultimate questions, for seeking nuanced and intellectually satisfying answers, and for probing the veracity of Christianity. As for any questions or doubts you might have, keep wrestling. God can handle it, so wrestle hard. I am confident that if you seek the truth, you will find it. And remember, God knows our weakness; He does not require that we know, only that we believe. In my own wrestlings, I've found this adage helpful.

Ok, I couldn't resist! Here's another (his)story:

Quote:

Long ago, King Edmund I of England was approached by Christian missionaries. At that time, England was a pagan country. After hearing these missionaries, Edmund asked his wise men whether or not he could trust them. One of the wise men said, “O king, the life of man is like the life of a sparrow. He flies into the mead hall out of the dark and the cold and the ice and for a brief time he is in a lighted room where there is music and song and wine and food and merriment, but he flies on through, and flies out the other window into the dark and the cold and the ice and the snow. Such O king is the life of man as our faith teaches it. If these have anything more to say than that, I suggest that we hear them.” And so because of the hope that Christianity brought, England adopted Christianity as its national religion.

weinhold · #49 (**permalink**) 09-19-2007, 02:02 AM

Unfortunately, I don't have time to answer both Dennis and Mark tonight. My apologies. I will answer Mark tonight, and Dennis tomorrow.

Here is what Mark said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Tim 4:2

I disagree. Mens use of the words are merely that. The nature of the words do not really change only the intention of mens hearts. Setting aside any perceived misuse of these words what then would be your inhibitions to using such words?

If by "the nature of words" Mark means the meaning of words, then I'm afraid I must disagree with his premise. Definitions (both denotative and connotative) change with usage; just think about the way words like "gay" or "web" or "memory" or "drive" have changed in recent years, not to mention completely new words like "blog" or "google." That being said, Mark might argue that words like "inerrant" and "infallible" can still do the work they need to do, and that would be a reasonable argument to make. As it is, however, I do not think they act as sufficient modifiers for "Scripture" unless they are qualified in some aspects and expanded in others.

2 Tim 4:2 · #50 (**permalink**) 09-19-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weinhold

Unfortunately, I don't have time to answer both Dennis and Mark tonight. My apologies. I will answer Mark tonight, and Dennis tomorrow.

Here is what Mark said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Tim 4:2

I disagree. Mens use of the words are merely that. The nature of the words do not really change only the intention of mens hearts. Setting aside any perceived misuse of these words what then would be your inhibitions to using such words?

If by "the nature of words" Mark means the meaning of words, then I'm afraid I must disagree with his premise. Definitions (both denotative and connotative) change with usage; just think about the way words like "gay" or "web" or "memory" or "drive" have changed in recent years, not to mention completely new words like "blog" or "google." That being said, Mark might argue that words like "inerrant" and "infallible" can still do the work they need to do, and that would be a reasonable argument to make. As it is, however, I do not think they act as sufficient modifiers for "Scripture" unless they are qualified in some aspects and expanded in others.

What is it about anything in Genesis that drives you to determine that it is just a story and not historically or scientifically accurate?

weinhold · #51 (**permalink**) 09-19-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Tim 4:2

What is it about anything in Genesis that drives you to determine that it is just a story and not historically or scientifically accurate?

Mark, I don't presume to determine what is historically or scientifically accurate in Genesis. How could one substantiate such a claim?

I sincerely apologize for giving you this false impression.

weinhold · #52 (**permalink**) 09-19-2007, 06:46 PM

Dennis, thanks for your patience with me. I'm glad to finally respond to your post.

I suppose that if one felt the need to scientifically account for our beginnings, then the type of investigation you mention above would prevent intellectual suicide. To me, however, it just seems a bit silly. Whatever the factual event of creation was, it is neither observable nor repeatable, so how could science allege a conclusive answer? What we have in Genesis is more constant than scientific fads, more beautiful than cold facts, more functional than a DVD of the creation event. What would be so great about a scientific explanation, and why does Genesis need to correspond with the creation event, for which science itself cannot account? I hope these questions communicate my perspective about Genesis: I fail to understand why critics of Genesis fault it for lacking scientific precision, and I also fail to understand why its proponents accept the very same premise when they defend it.

Dennis writes:

Quote:

If we concede that Genesis does not mean what it says in chapters 1-3, and if there is no universal flood, no tower of Babel, etc., why should we believe that it should be taken any more literally in the New Testament? While yom may mean many things, it certainly means "day" in Exodus 20:11 when God's creation of the world in six days is linked to the institution of the Sabbath. Jesus did not just accommodate himself to the ignorance of the day and speak with a wry smile and a wink in his eye, did he? Nor did Paul take the need for the Second Adam any less literally than the problem occasioned by the first Adam.

I think the problem with this paragraph is the vagueness of "mean what it says" in the first sentence. I would never concede that what the Bible says is not true. But as I have written above, I envision truth as a genus; factuality and story are species of truth. Even if Genesis were proven false in their factuality (a conclusion science cannot provide), it would still be a true story.

Your thoughts?

DMcFadden · #53 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 12:33 AM

Paul,

Now I must plead for patience. Tonight is not the time to respond thoughtfully.

Briefly, I do not believe that we must "prove" that the Bible corresponds to science. My claim is that the nature of historical narrative militates for a more straight-forward reading of Genesis as a summary, but not factually inaccurate, re-telling of the great work of God's creation. It is only when some Christians confront secular claims to a hegemony on "truth" in their account of origins and respond by capitulating to the naturalistic version of things that I put forth chinks in the scientific account. Your final sentence is doubtless true. However, why even make the distinction here?

Exodus 20:11 may be the most embarrassing verse in the Bible for the 21st century Christian. Most conservatives hold to some form of old earth viewpoint. Yet, Exodus 20:11 seems to ground the institution of the sabbath yom in the creation yom of Genesis.

Archlute · #54 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 07:45 PM

I agree that Exodus 20:11 presents a real problem for the metaphorical reading of the early chapters of Genesis. As well, the inconsistency of the "sophisticated" hermeneutic which Paul and others embrace is clearly shown when the question is asked as to why that approach is not consistently applied to the great bulk of the book outside of the first three chapters. Notice that I said "consistently" applied. For example, if one were to apply Kline's Framework hermeneutic with true consistency to the rest of Genesis, it would make historical mush out of the Abraham cycle. Nobody that I am familiar with gets all bent out of shape about the historicity of the Patriarchal narratives (except for the Society of Biblical Literature radicals), but it is linguistically clear that the Hebrew prose used in those narratives is no different than the linguistic usage of the first three chapters of the book.

Does this mean that Moses, as guided by the Holy Spirit, had no stylistic genius when tailoring the truth of these events to the ear? Not at all - they are completely historically accurate, as well as represented with stylistic savvy.

If you want to see the change in Hebrew syntactical style between historical narrative and poetic metaphor, all you have to do is compare the historical books with any of the prophetic oracles, the Psalms, the Song of Solomon, etc. It will quickly become clear that there is a difference that should be obvious to any modestly skilled Hebrew reader. In fact, the Prophetic and Poetic portions of the OT are not even assigned for study at WSC until the second and third years. Why is that? Because they are so much more difficult and complex when compared to historical narrative, that the first year student cannot even begin to decipher most of it. The distinction between history and metaphor becomes quite obvious.

Gloria · #55 (**permalink**) 09-20-2007, 11:48 PM

If Genesis isn't literal, was there a REAL Adam? If Adam wasn't real, then Adam didn't fall. If Adam didn't fall, we aren't in sin and are able to live sin free. If we are born sinless why do we need a savior? The line of questioning goes ON and ON. I REALLY believe that toying with Genesis (ESPECIALLY stories in Genesis like the creation story and the fall) toys with the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

I really think that people who say/think things like this do not examine the full implications of it. They are definitely treading on thin ice.

I mean, seriously, the first prophecy of the coming messiah is mentioned IMMEDIATELY after the fall in Genesis 3:15...

2 Tim 4:2 · #56 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weinhold

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Tim 4:2

What is it about anything in Genesis that drives you to determine that it is just a story and not historically or scientifically accurate?

Mark, I don't presume to determine what is historically or scientifically accurate in Genesis. How could one substantiate such a claim?

I sincerely apologize for giving you this false impression.

So you have no way of knowing if Genesis 3 is accurate? How would such a position clarify mans fall and need for Christ?

jtbdad · #57 (**permalink**) 09-21-2007, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Amazon.com: An Introduction to the Old Testament: Books: Edward J. Young

One of my favorites!

I have a first edition I was able to buy from the library book sale for $1.60.

weinhold · #58 (**permalink**) 09-22-2007, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Tim 4:2

So you have no way of knowing if Genesis 3 is accurate? How would such a position clarify mans fall and need for Christ?

Mark, how could anyone conclusively prove with science (a created thing) that the universe was spoken into being by God? How could anyone give a conclusive and exhaustive narrative of the creation event, let alone any events that followed after it? These realities exist in the past, behind the text, but they are not realities that we are meant to see. As I said before, Scripture is a sumptuous gown; we need to be enthralled with the beauty it brings, not constantly peeking underneath it.

DMcFadden · #59 (**permalink**) 09-22-2007, 03:03 AM

Paul,

As a presuppositionalist, I begin with the idea that you can either start with God or with naturalistic materialistic assumptions. Beginning with God, the account of Genesis corresponds with an increasingly impressive fit to recent science research. Beginning with time, chance, and matter you can also make the facts "fit" the metanarrative. My contention is that the "facts" of science more comfortably conform to the presupposition of the God described in Genesis.

2 Tim 4:2 · #60 (**permalink**) 09-22-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weinhold

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Tim 4:2

So you have no way of knowing if Genesis 3 is accurate? How would such a position clarify mans fall and need for Christ?

Mark, how could anyone conclusively prove with science (a created thing) that the universe was spoken into being by God? How could anyone give a conclusive and exhaustive narrative of the creation event, let alone any events that followed after it?

This is an interesting question from a Christian. Since I never alluded to such an idea it appears that this is simply the basis you use to interpret scripture.(correct me if I am wrong) The r