In the Beginning: The Debate over God’s Creation
In the Beginning: The Debate over God’s Creation
The Bible is filled with figurative and literal language. Consequently, it has long been debated whether the account in Genesis is to be taken as a literal or figurative recording of God’s Creation. There are many theories on how God created the universe. Much of the debate within the biblical account of creation occurs over the misunderstanding of what God intended to teach. The majority of these misunderstandings are rooted in the misinterpretation of Scripture. The historical context of Scripture is highly important to understanding the biblical account of creation. Excluding the historical context of the book of Genesis can compromise the intended meaning. The message conveyed within Genesis can only be properly understood by knowing who the original audience of the message was and what the purpose was for the writing of the message. What is the correct way of interpreting the account of creation within Genesis? Should Christians today search for meaning through figurative or literal lenses? By exploring each side of the spectrum a deeper understanding of God’s intentions are unveiled.
Are the seven days referred to in Genesis literally 24 hour days or actually just seven periods of time? This is an issue that spurs tension within the church today. The publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Darwin in 1859 was a pivotal event in the history of science (Hazen. & Trefil, 1992, p. 248). Along with the advancement of today’s science, the biblical account of creation has brought about controversy within the church. It has long been believed by the church that God created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh. In fact, the language of Genesis and other books do give this impression. As with the English language the Hebrew language has several different meanings for the same word. For example, consider the phrases “back in my day” and “during the day” and “it took two days.” Each of these phrases refer to different meanings of the same word, “day.” The first phrase, “back in my day,” means time in general, while “during the day” refers to the daylight of a 24-hour period. The last phrase, “it took two days,” refers to the actual 24-hour period of time. So then, how is day used within Bible? The Hebrew word for day, yom, takes on several meanings. A number, along with the phrase “evening and morning,” are used to describe each day of creation. As Ken Ham says, “Days are defined by ‘evening and morning’ and could therefore conclude an actual set of time” (Ham & Wieldan, 2000, pp. 37-39). More interesting to note would be the break down of the usage of yom. Ham says that yom is used 2,301 times in the Old Testament and refers to a 24-hour period of time 410 outside of Genesis. Whenever used with “evening” and “morning,” yom always indicates an ordinary time (Ham & Wieldan 2000). Ham and Wieldan also take a look at the context of the word yom used in Genesis, “yom is used in Genesis 1:5-2:2… Day 1 – ‘And God called the light day [yom] and the darkness he called night.’ So the evening and the morning were the first day [yom]” (Ham & Wieldan, 2000, pp. 37-39). They then further the argument against yom meaning “period of time” by claiming,
The plural of yom, which does not appear in Genesis 1, can be used to communicate a longer time period, e.g. ‘in those days.’ Adding a number here would be nonsensical. Clearly, in Exodus 20:11 where a number is used with days, it unambiguously refers to six Earth-rotation days. (Ham & Wieldan, 2000, pp. 37-39)
They also state that there are two other words in Hebrew that are more suitable for describing long periods of time, such as olam or qedem. Ham and Wieldan conclude that “It seems quite clear by the context that the author of Genesis chapter 1 meant 24-hour periods” (Ham & Wieldan, 2000, pp. 37-39). Another view point Ham and Wieldan bring up deals with the integrity of Scripture: Genesis, being the Word of God, should not be added to through man’s flawed analysis (Ham & Wieldan 2000). By bringing in extrabiblical influences, the flawlessness of man imposes upon God’s written Word. So are Christians compromising the Bible with worldly science by way of figurative viewpoints?
The figurative view of the Bible argues that Genesis is poetic in form and, therefore, could be in a figurative language, a belief concluding that the term “day” does not necessarily have to mean 24 literal hours but could figuratively describe seven periods of time. The Hebrew language abounds with symbols, figurative language, and metaphors (Hummel 1986). Genesis could have been written in any form of literature (e.g. poetry, prose, history, or parable). After understanding the literary genre, there can be an educated and appropriate interpretation of the book. Hummel discusses the literary workings of Genesis more in depth, stating, “Although we do not find here the synonymous parallelisms and rhythms of Hebrew poetry, the passage has a number of alliterations” and the “prominence of repetition and of its corollary silence, brings the writing close to poetry” (see Fig. 1) (Hummel, 1986, p. 202).
To those that associate poetry with fantasy, Hummel brings about a valid argument saying that “we must give up the false antithesis that prose is fact and poetry is fiction” (1986, p. 202). Indeed, he adds that Genesis “appears to be a unique blend of prose and poetry” (Hummel, 1986, p. 202). Hummel also attests that prophets used symbols and images to describe future events (Hummel 1986). Hummel says “the passage does use figurative language for describing God’s activity: anthropomorphisms which represent God as if he were a human king – speaking and seeing, working and resting” (1986, p. 202). Compared with similar writings elsewhere in the Bible and other compositions, the biblical account of creation in Genesis does seem poetic in nature and could very well be interpreted in a figurative sense.
There are valid arguments for each side of the debate over interpretation of creation in Genesis. However, C.S. Lewis offers a new perspective to the interpretation of Genesis. Lewis seems to side with the figurative approach to Genesis, believing that the beginning chapters were, “in the form of a folk tale” (Lewis, 1960, p. 33). This, as Vaus says, “Left open the possibility for Lewis [to accept] certain aspects of evolution into his theology” (Vaus, 2004, p. 62). Even more discrediting to C.S. Lewis is the fact that he believed that the account given in Genesis, “derived from extrabiblical sources,” (Vaus, 2004, p. 62). Nonetheless, Lewis believed that “God guided the process” of the documenting of Genesis (Vaus, 2004, p. 62). Modern science, as C.S. Lewis states, even holds up the biblical illustration of nature. He also contends that, “we must be cautious of building our case for Creation on any current scientific theory, for those theories change as quickly as the shifting sands. The mystery of origins ultimately lies outside the discovery of science” (Vaus, 2004, p. 67). More interesting is C.S. Lewis’ view of God being transcendent of time. He brings an interesting twist to the biblical account of creation saying, “God did not create the universe long ago; rather he creates the universe every minute” (Vaus, 2004, p. 68). God being outside of time certainly puts the creation account into a new light. Whether God created the world in 6 days or 6 billion years no longer takes account. C.S. Lewis does bring about a valid argument: since God is outside of the time and humankind is bound to it, then the very fact that God created means that God did create, is creating, and will continue to create.
A very important argument not mentioned within either side of the debate is the fact that Genesis does not strictly confine the reader to “how” God created but simply alludes to fact that God created, “In the beginning God created…” (Genesis 1:1a). Believing that God uses figurative language within His Word, which He does, and in this case a form of poetry, does not confine the reader to the fact that “God created only in this way…” It does, however, strictly emphasize that “God created.” Genesis doesn’t necessarily tell us “how” God created, but it does give insight into “why” God created. “God saw that it was good” and, thus, he created (Genesis 1:21b). As Vaus states, “Lewis did not believe, however, that holding to the biblical doctrine of Creation committed one to believing in a specific way of picturing that creative process by which God created human beings” (Vaus, 2004, p. 65). Even so, Lewis might have been questioning the integrity of the Scripture by basing his creational beliefs on extrabiblical sources. Though he believed “God guided the process,” by questioning Scripture in the way he did, Lewis may have allowed for the misinterpretation of God’s Word. The Word of God is a matter of God’s integrity. It is for certain that Genesis cannot be ruled out as an accurate portrayal of God’s creation because it is the Word of God. God chose this account of creation for a reason; it was the best method for teaching the Israelites about God’s creation. The importance of how God created is not as important as why God created. Lewis notes two important reasons of why God created: the first being that God loved mankind into existence, for his pleasure, and the second being people were created to enjoy God and all His creation (Vaus, 2004, p. 64). The telling of Genesis was originally intended for the Israelites, to make clearly known to them that they were, in fact, created by God (Hummel, 1986, p. 200). It has long been said that Genesis is the “book of beginnings.” A more accurate description might be the “book of origins.” The origin of the universe, the birth of humanity, it is all from God, by God. How can one grasp the grandeur of God’s creation?
Figurative and literal language are a part of the Bible. The debates over Genesis’ account of creation should be centered on why God created and not so much how God created. The misunderstandings of God’s lesson for Genesis are a direct result of the misinterpretation of Scripture. Misinterpretation is grounded. There is no definite correct way to interpret the book of Genesis because humankind is flawed. It is necessary for Christians today to search for meaning through both figurative and literal lenses. Christians should be looking to explore each side of the spectrum, seeking out a deeper understanding of God’s creation.
References
Ham, K. and Wieldan, C. (2000). The Answers Book. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press, 34-49.
Hazen, R. and Trefil, J. (1992). New York: Anchor Books, 248-249.
Hummel, C. (1986). The Galileo Connection. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 200-205.
Lewis, C.S. (1960). Miracles. New York: Macmillan, 33.
The Student Bible. 1996. New International Version. Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation.
Vaus, W. (2004). Mere Theology: A Guide to the thought of C.S. Lewis. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 62-70.
