Questions in Genesis: The Scientific Veracity of the Bible

Questions in Genesis: The Scientific Veracity of the Bible

           

Any time I encounter discussions of the Bible being or not being scientifically accurate, I am reminded of the story of Brer Rabbit and the tar baby.  Brer Rabbit was unwilling to allow the tar baby to be a tar baby and got so upset that this inanimate object would not speak to him that he ends up punching and kicking the tar baby.  The end result is that the tar baby was unmoved and Brer Rabbit ended up in quite a mess.[1]  I see the same thing happen when one tries to fit the Bible into the modern understanding(s) of scientific accuracy.  The Bible does not fit nicely into these categories, and forcing it is not generally helpful.  The reason for this is as follows:

1.      The Bible is an ancient text.  It records history and speaks about the world largely in keeping with the accepted practices of its time periods.  This very nature of the Bible makes it difficult to fit with a post-enlightenment view of science.  The standards of scientific accuracy are a rather recent invention within human history.

2.      The Bible is a religious text.  It addresses reality from a religious perspective.  It even gives two disparate accounts of the creation of the world each of which made a different theological point.[2]  This does not mean that the Bible does not convey truth about reality.  This does mean that the Bible has other concerns than being a scientific textbook.

As a Christian, I view the Bible as the product of God’s condescension to reveal something of Himself to humanity.  As such, I rather expect the language to reflect an ancient worldview and terms to convey the message.  As Saint Augustine taught me, words are signs that signify something beyond themselves.[3]  As such, I do not view the ancient terms and concepts to necessary be the ultimate or intended things signified.  This means that I am not reading the Bible to see what it has to tell me about the science of the physical world, but about the spiritual world and realities.  At the same time, the Bible does address the reality of the physical world.  This is why the Bible is often used with great reliability by archeologists. This does not make the Bible a scientific work.

Some have successfully read portions of the Bible as a science book.  The greatest example of this was Matthew F. Maury.  He was inspired by the phrase “the paths of the seas” in Psalm 8:8.  Partly because of this passage he devoted countless hours of his life to charting the ocean currents while an officer in the U.S. Navy.  His works proved to be of immense benefits to the speed and effectives of modern navigation. 

While this Biblical phrase here was the impetus of his discovery it does not necessarily follow that this was the intended meaning of the text.  Indeed, it is important to consider whether or not Psalm 8:8 is actually referring to oceanic currents or simply using metaphor to describe the movement of sea creatures.  This is a particular difficulty when one is finding scientifically accurate statements embedded in poetic and prophetic works. 

There are examples even within the same poetic book that can be viewed as scientifically accurate and clearly not scientifically accurate.  In Job 26:7 we read, “He hangs the earth on nothing.”  Some have taken this as evidence that the Bible affirms that the globe is suspended in space.  However, we also read earlier in the same work, “who shakes the earth under heaven from its foundations and its pillars tremble” (Job 9:6).  This leads to the rather obvious question of our “scientifically accurate” work, “Does the earth rest upon pillars or is it a sphere suspended in the vacuum of space?”  As a work of science, the Bible is contradictory at this point.  As a work of poetry however, the theological truths are conveyed with powerful imagery, the way that poetic works do those things.

Therefore, when I encounter well-meaning statements along the lines of “The Bible is not a scientific text book, but everything it says about science is true and reliable,”[4] I slightly grimace.  In Joshua chapter 10, our solar system is presented as the sun orbiting around the earth instead of the earth orbiting around the sun.  That is kinda of a problem if we were to read the Bible as being scientifically accurate in all that it says.

To put it colloquially, the Bible is often quite unconcerned with the “actual factual”.  This is clear when one reads the “historical” books of the Old Testament.  The history is told from a prophetic point of view.  The reason Israel suffers military defeat is not because they were yet another region being conquered and ruled by powerful expansionistic empires of the days, but because Israel did not keep the law and so God handed them over to be punished.  This is to say that the Bible was composed by people whose concern was not “history” as we would define “history” today.  Rather, they wrote history from the divine perspective.  This does not negate the things described in the Bible as being a-historical events, but it does mean that we should read the Bible from the perspective of the divine interaction with “human events.” 

This leads me to my concluding point.  If one chooses to read the Bible as though it were written from a post-enlightenment worldview when discussing the world, then one would either have to discount it as being untruthful or attempt to argue that the world is not how it is.  Either approach ultimately fails to read the Bible as it was written; as multiple accounts by multiple authors reflecting on the workings and revelations of God through the medium and world view of their times.  When I apply this conclusion to the Genesis creation accounts, I find that I am not reading these accounts for the sake of gleaning scientific knowledge, but about understanding something about God and how I ought to think and act.

---

[1] For the full account of this story, consult Uncle Remus.

[2] For further discussion on the disagreements between the two Genesis creation accounts, see my earlier post: https://johnmarkbeazley.blogspot.com/2017/01/questions-in-genesis-part-1-which.html

[3] This is even the case for Derrida, who despite his best efforts cannot be understood if signs did not have particular (even if at times ambiguous) referents.

[4] For an example see  Rick Warren http://pastorrick.com/devotional/english/the-bible-is-scientifically-accurate_579

Questions in Genesis: On Theistic Evolution and the Genesis Accounts

Questions in Genesis:

On Theistic Evolution and the Genesis Accounts

            There is no room in the Genesis creation narratives for the coming into being of the earth and all the creatures in it through an evolutionistic process devoid of God.  “In the beginning God,” simply precludes the notion that Genesis could present the world coming into being apart from the activity of God.  Yet, the text certainly could be read in a manner that supports a theistic evolutionary model.  The wording used in the creation account of Genesis 1 could be read from a theistic evolutionist perspective without engaging in exegesis anymore fanciful than that of the Young Earth position. 

            This reading works with the plants, the animals, and humans.  In Genesis 1:11, God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth."  After God says this, we read in verse 12 that the “earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”  In this account God speaks and the earth then brings forth the plants.  The activity of God is seen in his saying that these plants and trees should come into being and then seeing that the finished product was good.  The means by which this plant life came into being from the text is a work of the earth.  Therefore, one could read this as god speaking the divine plan for plant life and then evolution producing the result at which point God looks at this product and declares it to be good.

            This method of creation is repeated in 1:24-25, “And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds - livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.  And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”  Again, God called for an inanimate object (the earth) to produce animate creatures.  This is how God created the land animals.  The creation of the sea creatures and flying birds appears to be different.  Although the waters are told to swarm with living creatures, the birds lack such a starting point and are simply made.  Yet, such could be taken as an outlier and that the reader should assume that God used similar methods. 

THE PROBLEM OF HUMANITY

            The Genesis 1 creation account lacks any specificity regarding the origin of humanity.  However, the creation account in Genesis 2 could give some difficulty to the evolutionist position on the origin of humanity.  The creation of humanity is given in some detail that, at face value, appears to preclude the idea that humanity came from another creature.  Genesis 2:7 states, “then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.”  This statement presents the origin of humanity as dirt. 

            It could be possible to interpret this “dirt” that God formed humanity out of to involve the creatures that God commands the earth to bring forth.  But that would require reading one creation account into the other creation account.  This may well be a valid practice, but requires one to hold to a unity of these accounts that supercedes the minor difference between these accounts.  This reading would also run afoul of a strong Patristic consensus that viewed the creation of humanity as a unique event in creation that explains the very nature of what is means to be human and sets the theological foundation from salvation is viewed.  I am not saying that it is impossible to account for the text of Scripture and the consensus of the Fathers while explaining how humanity evolved from creatures.  I am saying that it is exceptionally problematic.  All this to say that I can see how a theistic evolutionary reading of the Genesis accounts could easily correspond with text and tradition until one arrives at humanity.

Questions in Genesis Part 1: Which Creation Account?

          Foreword: I have chosen to begin the blog with a series of articles that I had typed up entitled Questions in Genesis.  These articles were originally composed a few years ago as part of how I processed a visit to the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

                    Questions in Genesis part 1: Which Creation Account?

        

The biblical narratives in the first few chapters of Genesis are taken by many to mean that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that all which exists was brought into existence in the span of six 24 hour periods of time.  More often than not this position is combined with the view that any other understandings of the text subvert the authority and veracity of the biblical text.  This essay will argue there are multiple readings of the creation accounts in Genesis that disagree with a six 24 hours periods of time creation and are in no way bowing to the pressure of society in doing so.

I cannot recollect the number of times that I have encountered the phrase "the biblical account of creation" or something like it.  This became particularly irksome to me as I meandered the halls of the Creation Museum.  I am naturally and often easily irked by things which I find to be dishonest and misleading.  Such is the case with this statement.  As one moves from the first verse of Genesis, one begins to read an account of God creating the earth and the heavens in 6 days and then resting on the seventh day.  This account in Genesis 1 is what Young Earth Creationists speak of when they use the phrases “the Biblical creation account” or “the Genesis creation account.”  The use of the phrase “the Genesis creation account” is disingenuous and begs the question. 

There is not only one creation account in Genesis.  There are actually two creation narratives in Genesis and they do not agree in the time or the ordering of creation.  This is problematic and was understood to be problematic in the early church as well.  In Genesis 1:1-2:3 there is one account and then Genesis 2:4-2:25 provides a second account.  In a way, I feel bad for the Genesis 2 account because it is often treated as though it does not provide a serious record of the creation account.  For example, when was the last time you heard the phrase, “the one day of creation” from a young earth creationist?  The six “literal” days of creation are spoken about at length, but never the one day of creation.  However, if we are going to take the biblical text seriously, we should give a careful examination to both accounts.  Below is a comparison of the two creation accounts of Genesis.

Genesis 1	Genesis 2
6 day creation, 1 day of rest	One day of creation
Order of creation Light and darkness created Waters separated, Heaven created Land and plants Lights in the heavens: Sun, moon, stars Aquatic creature and birds Lands creatures Humanity	Order of creation Dirt and mist already in existence Adam Plants Rivers Animals
Plants are given for food	Plants are given for food
God rests	Eve is made after none of the animals are found to be suitable helpers.
Creation is used to teach the importance of Sabbath keeping.	Creation is used to teach the importance of marriage.

The first thing that I mentioned is the difference in the time of the creation accounts.  The is quite important because the position of Young Earth Creationism is often based upon the understanding that “day” in Genesis 1 means “one 24 hour period of time” and yet in Chapter 2 we have the account of creation taking place in the space of one of these 24 hours periods of time.

The second thing to notice is that the order of creation is different.  Quite, and likely irreconcilably, different!  In Genesis one, humanity is made last.  In Genesis 2, Adam is made first.  The order of plants coming before animals remains the same as well as the giving of plants for food to humanity.  Yet, the place of humanity in creation is markedly different and sets these two accounts in opposition to each other regarding the ordering of creation.

Thirdly and quite importantly, there are theological/pedagogical purposes in both creation accounts.  The first account centers on the importance of Sabbath.  The second account centers on the importance of marriage.  The emphasis in the Genesis one account is on keeping the Sabbath.  This is how the account ends, with God blessing the seventh days and making it holy.  The reason creation is presented in a seven day period provides an example for how the Israelites ought to live their lives.  They were to work six days and rest on the seventh day following the example which God had set in his work of creation.

In the Genesis 2 account, the theological emphasis is one the very nature of marriage.  This is evident in the fact that Adam names all the creatures that God brings before him and yet none of these creatures was found to be a suitable helper for Adam.  Then, God creates a helper from Adam, a woman.  She is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.  And we are told in Genesis 2:24 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”  This statement just like the statement about resting on the Sabbath is a rather strange interlocution, unless the point of these creation accounts was more than simply providing a “scientifically accurate” account of the origin of all that exists.  This of course is the point that I wish to make: the creation accounts are presented in their forms for the purpose of instructing the readers that 1 God is the creator of all things, and 2 either A) Keep the Sabbath because God set the example for rest after creation, or B) treat your spouse as your own body and join yourself to your spouse above all other family members because that is God’s design for marriage.

The overarching theological points that the Genesis creation accounts make are very rarely viewed as the central issues regarding the first two chapters of Genesis.  I view this as an example of societal pressures discerning the meaning and significance of the text instead of allowing the text to present its focus on marriage and Sabbath.  Likewise, attempting to read the first two chapters of Genesis as a scientific explanation of life will run into the same problem.  These chapters outlining the creation narratives of this world were focused on presenting narrative of creation that served very practical purposes which were not focused on a scientific (especially as we would understand this word in a post enlightenment context) explanation of the world.