Summary:
Our country’s most fundamental conflict between science and faith rests on the interpretation of one chapter in the Bible. But with a proper literary understanding of Genesis, the barriers between Christianity and science are removed.

Details or Sample:
Our country’s most fundamental conflict between science and faith rests on the interpretation of one chapter in the Bible. But with a proper understanding of Genesis, the barriers between Christianity and Science are removed.

The first thing a Christian needs to understand is that not everything in the Bible is history and none of it is a scientific manual. A Christian shouldn’t treat it as a scientific research paper nor expect the same things from it.

The Bible is filled to the brim with a massive range of various literary genres collected over a long period of time from one particular group of people. It includes: legal documents, letters, histories, biographies, myths, poetry, proverbs and even more genres that have died out in our culture (wisdom literature, apocalypses and more).

This makes the Bible incredibly fascinating for literature enthusiasts. It also makes it absolutely necessary for anyone who wants to believe it (or disbelieve it) to know exactly what they’re looking at.

You know you’re reading a particular genre because of the way it’s written. When you see writing that is addressed to someone, includes general well-wishes and an, “until next time,” you know you’re looking at a letter.

Poetry (in the Bible) is written with parallelisms, contrasts and hyperboles. History is concerned with dates (even if just in relation to a particular king’s reign) and a list of the most important events of the time. Legal documents detail two parties and agreements to confer rights in exchange for responsibilities.

It just so happens that Genesis chapter one is a myth. So is Genesis chapter two. As a matter of fact, up through chapter 11, it all seems to be written in the style of a myth. However, that much can be confusing even for literary scholars, so we’ll focus on the obvious: Genesis chapters one and two. Thankfully, that’s where the big modern fuss between Christians and Science comes from, too.

I know the Christians in my audience may be lost already, so let’s say what Genesis chapters 1 and 2 aren’t: history. It’s easy enough to see if you actually read them. Go ahead, you’ll be best prepared for what’s next if you read them.

There’s one account of Creation between Genesis 1:1 and 2:4(a). Then, the story starts all over again between Genesis 2:4(b) and 2:25. So, we’ve got two separate accounts of Creation. And they’re different. And they contradict each other.

So, in the first two chapters of the Bible, we have an atheist’s best friend and a Christian’s worst nightmare: a blatant contradiction in what’s claimed to be a divinely-inspired document. Apart from any bias, pride or shame, the simple truth is that the contradiction is there.

In the first Creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) God makes mankind (Adam) on the sixth day (1:26), after making absolutely everything else, bird, plant, land animal, everything. He makes mankind last, then he’s done and he rests.

In the second Creation account (Genesis 2:4-25) the timeline isn’t separated into days. But the first thing God does (after making the earth and heavens) is to make man (2:7). The Bible is very explicit here to make sure we know that nothing else on earth has been created yet, not even any plants (2:5). After God makes man, he makes a garden for him to till (2:8), then beasts to keep him company (2:19), and finally woman (2:22). Man was the first thing he made.

Yes, there’s no doubt about it: Genesis chapter two explicitly contradicts the chapter immediately before it. In the first Creation account, God makes man absolutely last, but in the second, God makes man before everything else. Here, a Christian can do one of two things: cash in their chips and convert to atheism or some other religion because the Bible is obviously wrong, or make the simple statement that not everything in the Bible was intended to be read literally.

I believe the second choice is best. Some parts of the Bible (histories, legal documents and letters certainly come to mind) make literal claims. Others (like poetry or myths) usually do not.

Nowadays, it’s easy enough to cut and paste from two different sources and hit the “print” button without noticing any obvious contradictions. But if you’re one of the few guys who can read and one of the even fewer who can write at your time, don’t you think you’d notice if what you’re writing contradicts itself so quickly and obviously? Sure you would. Yet, it was written anyway. And it was copied, and copied, and copied, (each time by hand) and passed on for thousands of years.

Apparently, the people who were writing it didn’t think that a literal interpretation of those two chapters of Genesis was the real point. (Or they would’ve fixed the contradiction, right?) So, if not history, what were they writing?

A myth. It so happens that a creation myth is one of the most common forms of myth. The first definition of myth given by American Heritage Dictionary is:

“A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society”

Let’s see if our Creation stories, Genesis 1 & 2, fit here: “A traditional, typically ancient story” (check) “dealing with supernatural beings,” (check) “ancestors,” (check) “or heroes” (not so much), “that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people,” (check) “as by explaining aspects of the natural world” (check) “or delineating the psychology,” (check) “customs,” (check) “or ideals” (check) “of society” (check).

The only aspect of a myth that these two chapters might not have is a hero, though some might debate Adam was a hero. In every other aspect both Genesis 1 & 2 fulfill every single aspect of a myth, kind of a myth culmination. It’s definitely old, deals mainly with the supernatural being (Elohim/Yahweh) that a society (Israel) found primarily important. It describes their common ancestors (Adam & Eve), everything in the natural world, their customs (marriage, 2:24 and Sabbath 2:3), and their psychology and ideals (which we’ll get to in a second).

It’s obviously not history or its authors would make sure they removed contradictions and got the facts right. It fits every detail of a myth. You can look the sources up yourself, but I can tell you it also fits much of the same patterns as other known myths in the Ancient Near East at the time. Why shouldn´t the author(s) use a literary genre they were familiar with?

Yet I know this will still rub many Christians the wrong way. But it shouldn’t. The definition of myth explains a literary device in a cultural context for a given purpose. The definition of a myth doesn’t make any inherent claims towards truth, fact or falsehood. Those decisions are up to the reader and the claims of the writer.

A myth has one main purpose: explaining. Specifically, it explains “psychology, customs or ideals.” So, with Genesis as a myth, what is the main thing it’s explaining? We’ll leave the customs alone because they’re pretty straight-forward and have nothing to do with the conflict between faith and science.

First and foremost, the point Genesis chapters 1 & 2 make without a doubt is that God made everything. It says that the God of Judeo-Christian tradition is responsible for everything there is, that nothing exists or existed without him. The same idea is echoed more explicitly in the Bible’s third Creation account (John chapter 1). It says that whether it happened through a word, a breath, a thought or something else entirely, he is the ultimate cause of everything.

Purchase this content for your website...

Pricing:

Make an offer

Usage:

$80

[Add to Cart]

Downloads: 0
Written by: Adam Willard
Available File Types:Text
Words: 2017