In the beginning . . .was confusion
We are spending some time in Genesis with Junior and Senior Youth at the moment and I'm always looking for chances to sharpen my spontaneous answering skills. One question that gets chucked round a bit is, 'Is Genesis real? Like, I mean, should we read it literally or is it just figuraive - like poetry or something?'
So, as a test run, here is a shot at an answer
Please feel free to help me by leaving a comment? Ta
Scott.
Should we read Genesis as literal or just poetic? (And what difference does it make?)
The bible has different types of literature spread throughout its 66 books. Some read like history, others like letters. There are also some poems, songs and biographies. What makes Genesis a little tricky is that it combines some of these different styles in the one book. For instance the first 11 chapters seem to be written in a slightly different style than chapters 12-50 (which we would probably refer to as history). So yes, Genesis is poetic and it is literal and other parts of it are probably a bit of a mix!
But here’s the thing: just because something is described poetically doesn’t mean that it is not true. So it’s important to remember that we can’t just ‘explain away’ the bits of Genesis we find a hard to swallow by saying, ‘Oh, they are just the poetic bits’ as if by saying this we mean that this part of the story never really happened. If I told you that ‘I love Hayley (my wife) so much that my heart feels like it will burst’, it doesn’t mean I have coronary problems, it’s simply a way to try and describe something that is hard to grasp unless you are in my shoes. Since Genesis records events like the creation of the universe, how the first humans stabbed God in the back and how God still provides for those people under His judgment, is it any surprise that the author dips into poetry, symbolism and epic story telling from time to time?
The trick is not to get so caught up in the style of the story that you miss the point. A classic example is in Gen Ch 1 when we are told God created the world in seven days. Were they seven ‘literally’ days or is it just symbolically referring to seven ‘periods of time’? The bottom line is who cares, right? The point is that God is powerfully in control so that all He has to do is speak a word and things appear from nothing. He made people on day six as the highlight of His creation and on day seven He brought everything to rest as the goal of creation. Can you see how whether the days are literally or figurative doesn’t really matter in the end – at least it certainly doesn’t change the point of the story.
7 comments:
AARRGGHH sherbit, take us Scotty, take us!!
Leights
Good answer. Gets to the point and makes the issue about the issue.
I would say that it is important that Adam and Eve were historical figures.
If thery are just some metaphysical representation of the 'plight of humanity' then it raises issues further down the line - ie Jesus stepped into history to solve a problem that actually took place in the bounds of history. Also it runs into problems with Romans 5 and all of humanity being 'in Adam'.
(but that doesn't need to be given in the answer, but jsut to make sure no one leaves with a mythological picture of Adam)
I usually answer this one by talking about 1. context and 2. genre.
you've given a tops genre response. But maybe it is also worth adding that the writer was not writing against Darwinism! He was writing against the Babylonian myth.
And thus his point is to say creatoin =
1 One God
2 a planned and purposeful creation
3. A humanity who is the pinnacle of creation and not an after thought
4. an ending of chaos by speaking into it rather than a creation of chaos (which is what the ancient myths allude to).
Those 4 points kinda cover context and allow us to say why it really isn't directly appropriate to put it up agains darwinism (as if the writer was writing about it)
thoughts?
I have a thought or two.
TO argue that it's poetry, like 'your heart bursting', you are going to have to have indications in the text that it looks and feels like the genre of poetry. I think that you can make a case for that in Gen 1 because of the 7 days, and repetition and a few other things.
Also -- You've only given us two options for 7 'days' -- 7 literal days or 7 periods of time. Both are the same, aren't they? They both seek to push Gen 1 into science questions. Maybe they are 7 textual markers in your poetry? I guess what I'm saying is that the 7 periods of time raises more and harder questions for me than 7 days.
But I like your answer, for the record.
GOod man, Scott.
(By the way, I found my tips for preaching.)
Yes, good answer - and incorporate what Craig said!
thanks for the feedback - i like it all.
Craig and the garratts - i discuss the creation myth lit. style in another question i answer on creatin v. evolution but you re right - it is helpful.
Justin - gotcha. To keep it resticted to linear time is tricly - esp. becuase in ch 1 we gt morning and evening about 2 or 3 days before we get the sun and the moon! If we are talking days, or any period of time that get's a bit weird?
I think i was to use the categories, poetic and historical, rather than poetic and literal.
scott
Amen Scott!!
This is so helpful and it fits with the context of the rest of the Bible (Election predestination, grace, Gods sovereignity and mans responsibility).
Post a Comment