Why genesis

However, the events in the first eleven chapters of Genesis—particularly creation, the Fall, and the Flood—have made certain Christian teachers so uncomfortable that they now are seeking to deny the undeniable. But this attack on Genesis is not new. In the early to midth century, there was a push toward evolutionary explanations of science that began to make theologians squirm.

Henry Morris, describes the atmosphere among theologians during that period:. It seemed an acceptable blend of science and theology. It allowed us to declare that God created plants, animals, and people in six literal days without our having to deal with the scientific evidence in much detail. In hindsight, though, the Gap Theory, along with other hybrid theories, was still just another compromise that denigrated the character of Scripture, and thus defamed the character of the Creator. You cannot really know God until you rightly understand Genesis.

If God designed the Bible to consist of 66 books, and ensured that His revelation was complete and unified and without error in every word within those 66 books, then we must be careful not to dismiss any statement or any book that God divinely inspired for us to read and study. God did not reveal His Word in a haphazard way; there is marvelous, perfect unity from beginning to end.

Nor did God wait around to see what ancient peoples wrote before He inspired the writers of the Bible. The lordship, power, and omniscience of the triune God are plainly presented from the very first pages of Genesis.

Genesis is clearly one of the greatest apologetics in all of Scripture, for if we stumble here, we cannot, or will not, appreciate God in the rest of the Bible. Accepting God as Creator demands our acceptance of Him as Judge, and that is exactly why many refuse to acknowledge that God exists, for doing so obligates them to deal with their sin before a righteous Judge. Of course, this is not to say that one cannot know enough about God to receive His gift of salvation should one only know, for instance, a gospel presentation from the book of John or Romans.

Many millions have been saved with just such portions of Scripture. Cite this article: Ford, L. Three Reasons Why Genesis Matters. Skip to main content. Any defense of a poem based on such confusions, and any attack on other forms of literature which do not "agree" with the poem, no matter how well-meaning and heroic, would be the greatest possible disservice to the poem, the spirit of the words, the intentions of the poet, and the nature of poetry. Similarly, a literal interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable.

It presupposes a kind of literature and concern that is not there. In doing so it misses the symbolic richness of what is there and subjects the biblical materials, and the theology of creation, to a completely pointless and futile controversy. The "creation model" of origins is not what the texts are about. So the issue, ultimately, is not that creationism is scientifically and historically incorrect, but biblically incorrect. There are actually two accounts of creation, one following the other, in Genesis 1 and 2.

The first is commonly referred to as the Priestly account, because it reflects a priestly style, and priestly context and concern. It was probably written in the sixth century B. The Priestly account uses the schema of six days of creation and occupies the first chapter and first verses of the second.

The other account, to which this has been prefaced, begins in chapter two, verse 4b, and contains the story of Adam and Eve in Eden.

It is referred to as the Yahwist account because of its use of the term Yahweh Jehovah for God, and was probably written in the time of Solomon tenth century B. Since it is the Priestly account that is central to the "creation model," the preponderance of attention will be given to the problem of its interpretation.

The alternative to the Priestly account available at the time was obviously not some prominent theory of evolution. All cultures surrounding Israel had their origin myths, some impressively developed in epic proportions and. Yet they were, from the standpoint of Jewish monotheism, hopelessly polytheistic.

The one origin account within Israel, the Yahwist, was monotheistic. But it did not have the sweeping cosmic scope of other cosmologies. This was especially critical relative to Canaanite religion within Palestine, with its Baal myth and cult, and to the religion of the Assyrians and Babylonians who in succession had conquered Israel and were the proud possessors of grand cosmologies, as well as complex astrological systems.

In fact, if one looks at the cosmological alternatives that were prominent in the ancient world, one senses immediately that the current debate over creation and evolution would have seemed very strange, if not unintelligible, to the writers and readers of Genesis. Scientific and historical issues in their modern secular form were not issues in debate at all. Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist, even though they owe a debt to the positive value given to the natural order by the biblical monotheistic affirmation of creation, which emptied nature of its many resident divinities.

What very much existed and what pressed on Jewish faith from all sides—and even from within—were the religious problems of idolatry and syncretism.

The critical question in the creation account of Genesis 1 was polytheism versus monotheism. That was the burning issue of the day, not some issue which certain Americans 2, years later in the midst of a scientific age might imagine that it was.

And one of the reasons for its being such a burning issue was that Jewish monotheism was such a unique and hard-won faith. The temptations of idolatry and syncretism were everywhere. Every nation surrounding Israel, both great and small, was polytheistic.

And many Jews themselves held—as they always had held—similar inclinations. Hence the frequent prophetic diatribes against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods. Read through the eyes of the people who wrote it, Genesis 1 would seem very different from the way most people today would tend to read it—including both evolutionists who may dismiss it as a prescientific account of origins and creationists who may try to defend it as the true science and literal history of origins.

For most peoples in the ancient world the various regions of nature were divine. Sun, moon, and stars were gods. There were sky gods, earth gods, and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility.

Everywhere the ancients turned there were divinities to be taken into account, petitioned, appeased, pacified, solicited, avoided. For ancient Jewish faith, this divinized nature posed a fundamental religious problem. In addition, pharaohs, kings, and heroes were often seen as sons of gods, or at least as special mediators between the divine and human spheres.

The greatness and vaunted power and glory of the successive waves of empires that impinged on or conquered Israel Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia posed an analogous problem of idolatry in the human sphere. In the light of this historical context it becomes clearer what Genesis 1 is undertaking and accomplishing: a radical and sweeping affirmation of monotheism vis-a-vis polytheism, syncretism, and idolatry. Each day of creation tackles two principal categories of divinity in the pantheons of the day and declares that these are not gods at all, but creations of the one true God who is the only one, without a second or third.

Each day dismisses an additional cluster of deities, arranged in a cosmological and symmetrical order. On the first day the gods of light and darkness are dismissed. On the second day, the gods of sky and sea. On the third day, earth gods and gods of vegetation. On the fourth day, sun, moon, and star gods. The fifth and sixth days take away any associations with divinity from the animal kingdom.

And finally human existence, too, is emptied of any intrinsic divinity—while at the same time all human beings, from the greatest to the least not just pharaohs, kings, and heroes are granted a divine likeness and mediation.

On each day of creation another set of idols is smashed. These, O Israel, are no gods at all—even the great gods and rulers of conquering superpowers. They are the creations of that transcendent One who is not to be confused with any piece of the furniture of the universe of creaturely habitation. The creation is good, it is very good, but it is not divine.

We are then given a further clue concerning the polemical design of the passage when the final verse a concludes: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. Now to polytheist and monotheist alike the word generations at this point would immediately call one thing to mind. If we should ask how these various divinities were related to one another in the pantheons of the day, the most common answer would be that they were related as members of a family tree.

We would be given a genealogy, as in Hesiod's Theogony, where the great tangle of Greek gods and goddesses were sorted out by generations. Ouranos begat Kronos; Kronos begat Zeus. The Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians all had their "generations of the gods. Other cosmologies operated, essentially, on an analogy with procreation. A cosmic egg is produced and hatches. A cosmic womb gives birth. Or a god and goddess mate and beget further gods and goddesses.

In the priestly account a radical shift has taken place from the imagery of procreation to that of creation , from a genealogy of the gods to a genesis of nature. When Hesiod entitled his monumental effort at systematizing the complicated web of relationships between the many Greek gods and goddesses a theogony, he was reflecting the fundamental character of such cosmologies.

They are theogonies birth of the gods and theo-biographies as well. They depict the origin, life, and times of the various divinities. And they interpret "nature" in terms of these divine relationships. Procreative, family, social, and political relationships are used to describe the natural order, understood as divine beings and powers. Thus, if there is any sense in which the "creation model" of Genesis stands over against evolutionary models of natural and human history, it is in the sense that it self-consciously and decisively rejects any evolution of cosmic forces presented in terms of an evolution of the gods.

For that, by and large, was what polytheistic cosmologies were: the evolution of natural phenomena read as the emergence of new species of divinity. And their interaction with one another, their ecology, was read as the interaction within and between various families, clans, and armies of gods. The fundamental question at stake, then, could not have been the scientific question of how things achieved their present form and by what processes nor even the historical question about time periods and chronological order.

The issue was idolatry, not science; syncretism, not natural history; theology, not chronology; affirmation of faith in one transcendent God, not empirical or speculative theories of origin. Attempting to be loyal to the Bible by turning the creation accounts into a kind of science or history is like trying to be loyal to the teachings of Jesus by arguing that his parables are actual historical events and only reliable and trustworthy when taken literally as such.

Even among interpreters who do not identify with the literalism of the creationists, one often finds a sense of relief expressed in noting that the sequence of days in Genesis 1 is relatively "modern," and offers a rough approximation to contemporary reconstructions of the evolution of matter and life.

Actually, however, its closest approximation in this regard is to the Babylonian "Genesis," the Enuma elish. This epic mythology exalts Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, as the supreme divinity in the Mesopotamian pantheon.

Marduk is extolled for rescuing the cosmos from the threat of the goddess of the watery abyss, Tiamat, out of whose womb the first gods had come. He then established, out of the two halves of the slain Tiamat, heaven and earth; sun, moon, and stars; vegetation; animals and fish; human beings. It is this order, and this cosmology, that Genesis 1 most directly approximates. It provides a Jewish cosmology to preface the story of Adam and Eve, on a scale equally encompassing to that of other ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, yet without the polytheistic mythological dramatics.

The attempt, then, to harmonize Genesis with modern science by reading the days of creation as referring to large epochs of time, rather than literal days, is no more relevant to the issues the Priestly writer was addressing than the literalist interpretation. At best the days, read as epochs, provide a very rough approximation to recent scientific scenarios. The entire progression actually begins, not with a burst of light, but with watery chaos—as in the Babylonian epic—which hardly corresponds to any modern understanding of origins.

The "formless earth" is also depicted as existing before the light of day one and the sun, moon, and stars of day four. Vegetation is created before the sun, moon, and stars, on the third day, and surely would have wilted awaiting the next epoch. Still, no matter how close the approximations to modem natural histories might be, the entire line of argument is a lapse into a form of literalism, with its assumption that this account is in some way comparable to a scientific, historical one.

If there is a "modern" appearance to the account, it is not because it anticipates modem scientific constructions by presenting a similar sketch of a scientific order but because it anticipates them by preparing the way for them, in purging the cosmic order of all gods and goddesses. In Genesis the natural order, for the first time, becomes natural rather than supernatural. Nature has been demythologized and de-divinized. What was formerly divine, or a divine region, is now declared to be "creature.

Nor could science and natural history become possibilities until nature was thoroughly demythologized. One may have half-way houses, such as astrology and alchemy, but only when nature is no longer a divine sphere can it be probed and studied and organized without fear of trespass or reprisal. This does not mean that Genesis secularizes or desacrilizes nature; nature is still sacred by virtue of having been created by God, declared to be good, and placed under ultimate divine sovereignty.

What it does mean is that Genesis 1 clears the cosmic stage of its mythical scenes and polytheistic dramas, making way for different scenes and dramas, both monotheistic and naturalistic.

A related area of confusion is the supposition that the numbering of days is to be understood in an arithmetical sense, whether as literal days or as epochs.

This is certainly the way in which numbers are used in science, history, and mathematics—indeed, in almost all areas of modern life. But the use of numbers in ancient religious texts was often numerological rather than numerical. That is, their symbolic value, not their secular value as counters, was the basis and purpose for their use.

The conversion of numerology to arithmetic was essential for the rise of modern science, historiography, and mathematics. Numbers had to be neutralized, secularized, and completely stripped of any symbolic suggestion in order to be utilized. The principal surviving exception to this is the negative symbolism attached to the number 13, which still holds a strange power over Fridays, and over the listing of floors in hotels and high rises. The creationists, in their literal treatment of the six days of creation, are substituting a modern, arithmetical reading for the original symbolic one.

They are therefore offering, unwittingly, a secular rather than religious interpretation. And in the process, they lose the symbolic associations and meanings of the text while needlessly placing it in conflict with scientific and historical readings of origins.

One of the religious considerations involved in numbering is to make certain that any schema used works out numerologically—that it uses, and adds up to, the right numbers symbolically. An obvious concern of the Priestly account is to correlate the theme of the divine work in creation with the six days of work and seventh day of rest in the Jewish week.

If the Hebrews had had a five-day or seven-day work week, the account would have read differently. Seven was a basic unit of time among West Semitic peoples, and the Sabbath-day was well defined and established by this period.

It was important, then, to use a schema of seven days, and to have the work of creation completed on the sixth day. The word "ceases" is shabat , a cognate of the term shabbat, sabbath. The "creation model" being used here is in no sense a scientific model, but a liturgical-calendrical model based on the Jewish week and observance of sabbath.

Its motivation is religious, not scientific: to give ultimate grounding to the meaning of human work and creation, and to the religious significance of the sabbath observance.

The seven-day structure is also being used for another, not unrelated, reason. The number 7 has the numerological meaning of wholeness, plenitude, completeness. This symbolism is derived, in part, from the combination of the three major zones of the cosmos as seen vertically heaven, earth, underworld and the four quarters and directions of the cosmos as seen horizontally.

Both the numbers 3 and 4 in themselves often function as symbols of totality, for these and other reasons. But what would be more "total" would be to combine the vertical and horizontal planes. Thus the number 7 adding 3 and 4 and the number 12 multiplying them are recurrent biblical symbols of fullness and perfection: 7 golden candlesticks, 7 spirits, 7 words of praise, 7 churches, the 7th year, the 49th year, the 70 elders, forgiveness 70 times 7, and so forth.

When Joshua's army took the city of Jericho, they are said to have circumambulated the walls once a day for the first 6 days, and 7 times on the 7th day, preceded by 7 priests blowing 7 trumpets; whereupon the walls collapsed and the city was completely taken.

Even Leviathan, the dread dragon of the abyss, was represented in Canaanite myth as having 7 heads—the "complete" monster. The symbolic meaning of the number 7, and of the 7 days, also harks back to the lunar calendar which, in Mesopotamia, had quite early been divided into 4 phases of the moon, of 7 days each, followed beginning with the 28th day by the 3-day disappearance of the moon—thus equally 30 days.

The Babylonian epic of creation, Enuma elish —which itself consists of 7 tablets—has the god Marduk appointing the moon to four 7-day periods: "Thou shalt have luminous horns to signify six days, on the seventh day reaching a half-crown" Pritchard, p. On the seventh day of these lunar weeks one was counseled to abstain from a variety of ordinary activities because of the dangers involved during the critical transitions of the lunar progression.

According to one ritual text, seers were not to give oracles, physicians to administer to the sick, or the king to change clothing, ride in a chariot, hold court, eat cooked meat, or offer sacrifices Barton, p. The day of the full moon was known as shapattu , which has a probable relation to the Hebrew term for sabbath, shabbat , and shabat, "stop working. In the Hebrew tradition the seventh day, while associated with cessation of normal activity, is separated from the lunar week and looked upon more positively as a day of blessing, celebration, and rest.

This day does not suggest an atmosphere of anxiety or transition, but of relaxation and completion.

Such positive meanings are now being applied by the author of Genesis 1 to a celebration of the whole of creation and of the parenthesis of sabbath rest.

The liturgically repeated phrase "And God saw that it was good," which appears after each day of creation, and the final capping phrase "And behold it was very good," are paralleled and underlined by being placed in a structure that is climaxed by a seventh day. The Priestly account also makes use of the symbolism of the corresponding number for wholeness and totality: The six days of creation are actually two sets of three days each, with two types of phenomena assigned to each day.

The second set of days fills in the details provided by the backdrop of the first set of days. The light and darkness of day one are populated by the greater and lesser lights of day four; the firmament and waters of day two are populated by the birds and fish of day five; and the earth and vegetation of day three are populated by the land animals and humans of day six.

In this manner all the major regions of the cosmos are covered in six days, with two zones included each day, equalling Thus the symbolism of completion and fulfillment is associated with the work of creation as well as the rest from it on the seventh day.

The totality of nature is created by God, is good, and is to be celebrated both daily and in special acts of worship and praise on the sabbath day. Uses of the numerology of 12, like 7, abound throughout the Bible: the 12 tribes of Israel, as well as the 12 tribes of Ishmael, the 12 districts of Solomon, and Jesus' selection of 12 disciples, along with a miscellany of references to 12 pillars, 12 springs, 12 precious stones, 12 gates, 12 fruits, 12 pearls, and so forth.

We, of course, continue the biblical and ancient Near Eastern division of the day and night into 12 hours and the year into 12 months.

And the grouping of stars into 12 constellations and signs of the zodiac into 12 periods also derives from ancient Mesopotamia, along with the belief that the body was composed of 12 parts or regions. Though in the modern world numbers have become almost completely secularized, in antiquity they could function as significant vehicles of meaning and power.

It was important to associate the right numbers with one's life and activity and to avoid the wrong numbers. To do so was to surround and fill one's existence with the positive meanings and powers which numbers such as 3, 4, 7 and 12 conveyed.

A talking snake. Two mysterious trees. A massive flood. Confusion of languages. What do we make of these stories?

Did it all really happen as described by the early chapters of Genesis? Is Genesis giving us accurate history? Any account of past events can be considered history. However, Genesis is theological history and uses figurative language in some of its descriptions. The author of Genesis is not interested in telling us how God created in material terms or how long it took.

We believe Genesis is a true account that, like other ancient narratives, uses vivid imagery to describe past events. It is silent on the scientific questions we might wish it to answer. A close reading of the text provides clues that indicate where a plain sense meaning is not intended. For example, in Genesis 1, there are three evenings and mornings with no sun, moon, and stars, so these are not regular days as we understand them though they function that way in the text; they are literary days.

Or consider Genesis , when God forms Adam from dust and breathes into his nostrils. This language must be somewhat figurative, because we know from other passages in the Bible that God is Spirit with neither hands nor lungs. Genesis is the inspired word of God, but no human observer was present during the creation of the world, and God did not simply dictate a transcript of phenomena or events to the author of Genesis.

Inspiration does not work that way. We believe that the understanding of the narrator in Genesis is God-given and therefore we accept it as offering an authoritative and true understanding of the world.

However, it was not intended to enable us to reconstruct the creation events according to the scientific understanding of today or meet the demands of our modern worldview. Asking about history is asking about genre. Often when people identify Genesis as history they are arguing against identifying it with other genres such as myth or other forms of literary packaging such as poetry.

They might think that identifying Genesis as myth or poetry undermines or compromises its truth claims. But truth can be conveyed through a variety of genres or literary packages. The book of Genesis packages its truth claims largely in narrative , interspersed with genealogies. The early events described—including the side-by-side accounts of creation ch. We can benefit from investigating how narratives in the Old Testament and the ancient world packaged truth related to past events.

Even when their narratives deal with real events, the events are narrated as a means to a theological end. Narratives—ancient or modern—are rarely bare chronicles of events as they happened.

Take a reality TV show, for example. When an episode is filmed, multiple cameras are used to capture many events and conversations.