Originally posted by garpier:
If our disagreement is what is to be taken literally, please explain how you know where figurative language ends and literal language begins.
First, let me be clear that I don't
know. I make a judgement based on hermeneutics. I can't say that I know conclusively that Isaiah 55:12 is not describing a literal change in mountains and trees, but I'm pretty sure it isn't. The same goes for how I approach Genesis. Second, Genesis is not a monolithic whole. I'm going to break this down by section, and limit this to three sections to keep this manageable. I hope you weren't expecting a short answer.
Genesis 1:1-2:3
This passage uses a very different style of writing than what follows; indeed, it is without match in the entire Bible. Probably the closest literary parallel to this section is Revelation 6 and 8:1-5 which describe the seven seals. One account uses a framework of days, the other uses a framework of seals. Both accounts use a repeated phrase to introduce the seven items (the phrase varies slightly on the first and seventh days, and all but the second through fourth seals). Both accounts set off the seventh item as special. Both accounts portray God's actions from his dwelling place (through speech or through the breaking of seals on a document) as dramatically affecting our world. Both describe events that had not been witnessed by humans at the time of writing (John witnessed the vision, but not the actual events). In both accounts, the degree of literal description is highly debated.
There are other reasons not to presume that this passage is a historical account. It describes the same one-time event on both days 1 and 4: the separation of light (called day) from darkness (called night). It uses anthropomorphism to describe the sun and moon as ruling day and night. It completely ignores describing anything that would contradict the science of its time: no hint is given to the size of the sun, moon or stars, or to the fact that the earth is roughly spherical, and the idea of a firmament fits perfectly with what was then known. While these things can be reconciled with what we now know, the account does not in any way reveal what humans would later discover in these areas.
Another major reason is that the days are arranged in a way that creates symmetry between the actions on the first three days (forming light, sky and seas, dry land covered with vegetation) and the second three days (filling light with luminaries, sky and seas with birds and fish, dry land with animals and humans). This symmetry is only present because of the specific elements the author chose to focus on. If the creation of angels, bacteria, seaweed and hell were also included, the current symmetric arrangement would break. Because of this, it is unlikely that the symmetry is due to the way God actually created, but was rather made by the inspired author in how he chose to describe certain aspects of God's creation.
Probably the most common reason given is that if this account and the one following in Genesis 2 are both historical, they do not fit together very well. In a plain reading, the order of creation in Genesis 2 is man, plants, land animals and birds, woman. The order in Genesis 1 is plants, fish and birds, land animals and humans. The first account starts with primordial waters overwhelming an earth that is "formless and void" (Gen. 1:1-2) while the second starts with primordial ground in need of rain (Gen. 2:4-5). In the first God tells the humans to rule over the other creatures and subdue the earth; in the second man is placed in the garden to "work it and take care of it". The first portrays God creating mainly by speaking; the second has God forming Adam from dust and breathing life into him, with the animals and birds similarly formed out of the ground. The first portrays God (
Elohim, the Hebrew generic name for God) as above his creation while in the second God (
Yahweh, the Hebrew personal name for God) walks in the garden with Adam and Eve. There are many creative ways to attempt reconciliation between the accounts, but all have problems and all require more exegetical gymnastics than one would expect to be required to fit together two accounts presented back-to-back in Scripture. A far more straight-forward reconciliation is possible if one accepts that they are not both intended to be historical accounts.
Finally, the days in this account serve a purpose other than history. They also set the template for the work week and Sabbath. While this alone does not show that the days are not also historical, it does explain why a framework of days would be used even if the days were not historical.
All these reasons are based on the text itself. Even if creation itself in no way contradicted the order of creation shown in Genesis 1, there would still be many reasons to not take the account as historical. Indeed, that is why the days were suggested to be figurative at least as far back as Augustine -- long before any scientific reason for such an idea existed.
Genesis 2:4-4:26
This account reads far more like a historical account than the preceding chapter. But, it still has some significant differences, especially in the first two chapters. Most glaring is the fact that two trees are given magic properties. The tree of life is able to convey immortality to the one who eats from it, and this power appears to be inherent in the tree, rather than coming from God. Indeed, God removes the humans from the garden so they cannot eat from this tree, rather than just altering or removing the tree. Because of the way this tree and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are portrayed, it appears that they may be metaphorical. The tree of life represents God's sustaining power. Adam and Eve had access to this while they were in the garden (so they would not die), but were removed from it when they sinned. The tree is a tangible, physical representation of something we cannot physically see.
The form of story that uses these type of metaphors is called a fable. A fable is not a fib, but rather a story that explains something true -- often something supernatural -- by using natural objects to represent more than they naturally are. Aside from the magic trees, there is also the talking serpent. Unlike Balaam's donkey that was made to talk when "the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey" (Numbers 22:28), the serpent talks because it "was more crafty than any other beast of the field" (Genesis 3:1). Because this unusual occurrence is not attributed to a miracle or other supernatural event, but rather to craftiness, it lends support to the idea that the story is told in the form of a fable.
A similar case, though not a fable, can be found in Isaiah 51:9-10. This passage describes God's power in the exodus and specifically in crossing the Red Sea. In it, the power of Egypt is personified as Rahab (see also Isaiah 30:7), a mythical god of the sea. The use of this kind of metaphor does not mean the event did not really happen, but neither does it mean that Rahab is a real god. The event did happen, but Isaiah 51:9-10 uses more evocative imagery to describe it than the description in Exodus. Similarly, Genesis 2-3 uses non-literal imagery (including magic trees and talking animals) to describe the creation and fall of humanity.
Genesis 6-9:17
I've already given my opinions on the flood accounts, so I'll just expand on one aspect. I do think that these chapters describe a real event, and they are written in the same format as the later patriarchal accounts. However, I do think that these chapters contain at least two accounts that have been merged into a single account. This is based on two complementary factors. First, many details are recorded twice. Second, throughout the flood narrative, the text switches between using "LORD God" (
Yahweh in Hebrew) and "God" (
Elohim in Hebrew). What is compelling is that whether one divides based on the first reason or the second, one ends up with basically the same divisions. In other words, when a detail that contains a reference to God is recorded twice, one time uses LORD God while the other uses God. This is the strongest evidence that there are indeed two accounts that have been edited together.
There are two accounts of humanity's corruption (6:5-8; 6:11-13), two accounts of the animals to be brought onto the ark (6:19-21; 7:2-3), at least two accounts of when Noah and his family boarded the ark (7:7-9; 7:13-14; 7:15-16), two accounts of the flood beginning (7:10-12; 7:6,17), two accounts of things perishing in the flood (7:21-22; 7:23), two accounts of the flood's duration (7:17; 7:24), two accounts of sending out birds to find dry land (8:6-7; 8:8-11), two accounts of Noah seeing that the land was dry (8:13; 8:14), two accounts of God's covenant with Noah and humanity (8:21-22; 9:1-17).
While I'm doubtful about the JEPD documentary hypothesis, I do think that in this case, the inspired author composed what is now Genesis 6-9 from using existing sources.
Why does this matter? Because it reveals the level of historical detail. In one account, Noah enters the ark because of the water (7:7) and in the other, before the water comes upon the earth (7:16-18). One specifies two of every animal; the other specifies seven of the clean animals and two of the rest. One says Noah sent out a raven; the other says he sent out a dove repeatedly. One has the flood lasting 40 days; the other 150 days. Based on these minor differences, we can see the level of detail that is likely historical. This is similar to how one can use the differences in the order of Jesus' temptations to establish that the historical order was not a concern for the gospel authors.
---
So that's probably a lot more information than you wanted on why I don't see Genesis as a monolithic historical account. Like much of the rest of the Bible, it uses different styles of writing to describe God's unfolding relationship with humanity. I think we can better understand Genesis by paying attention to the literary clues within the text. Acknowledging different forms of writing in Genesis does not require one to deny that Genesis is true, but rather explains what type of truth it is proclaiming.