Is Genesis 1 Literal, Literalism, or Literalistic?
Young Earth Creationists like to claim they are the only Christians who hold the truth of the Bible. And they claim that science support their interpretation of of the Bible. Everyone else has capitulated to the atheistic evolutionary science and conform their interpretation to match the false secular science.
I don’t think I am too far off in stating the YEC view on this since I’ve been the subject of many of their attacks based on my Old Earth Creationist view.
So I will use the above article from Answers In Genesis, a vanguard of the YEC, to illustrate some of their errors.
Young earth creationists, or rather biblical creationists,1 are often accused of being over literal in their interpretation of Genesis 1. Regrettably, this accusation caricaturizes this position as a “literalistic interpretation,” which is unfortunate since biblical creationists explain their hermeneutic as “grammatical-historical interpretation.
This would be good if the author actually believes or understands this method, sadly this is not true like many arguments from YEC. As in this case in the very next sentence he has already invalidated his own claim of this hermeneutical method.
when we read Genesis 1 in its context, it should be understood as a historical account which teaches that God created everything in six 24-hour days
The grammatical-historical hermeneutics is not the same as history, a phenomenal event that happened in time and space. This method uses linguistic and historical context of the time period for that text to seek the original meaning of the text. What he is claiming here is that he already knows this is a literal historical event, and he will uses hermeneutics to support it.
This has always been the problem with YEC. They get an idea in their head of what the Bible said and have this holier than thou attitude that they are the true defenders of God’s truth. They are proud to fight against atheistic science. That is a crusader not a follower of Christ. Let me give an example,
“16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16–17 (ESV)
When we look at these verses from a grammatical-historical method. We are diagramming these sentences to determine the sentence structure and grammar. Do they fit the literature of that time period? What type of person wrote this, well educated, peasant, religious, or secular? Basically we are trying to understand everything about the linguistic of the words. Second, we want to know the historical context of the text. Given the time period that we think it was from does it fit the genre? What do the words mean in that time period? So far this method does not say anything about the actual historical reality of the text.
But from these analysis we can deduce what Paul meant by the word breathe, scripture and so on. Think of it like this if someone 200 yrs in the future read a news article we wrote today. Using the GH method he can determine if the article matches the linguistic usage in the year 2025 period and historically what the words meant and how it is used in our time. When they see us use the word “scan” they can deduce what the word meant in 2025. Unless specified the person in 2025 certainly didn’t use the word according to what it meant in the 1900s. This is what the GH method will do for the reading 200 yrs in the future. Even after know exactly what the word meant and the original intent of this 2025 author the entire article can be a fiction. It does not have to be real history.
I am not saying the Bible is fiction, don’t mischaracterize what I am saying. I am pointing out the AiG article is wrong to claim that because he uses the GH method then we are reading a historical account. GH method is a literary technique is it not a determiner of history. It is so egregious it doesn’t even qualify as being wrong.
I will argue that the literary genre of Genesis 1 should be understood as a historical account, events that took place in time-space history, which teaches that God created everything in six 24-hour days.
Eh, except he can’t. There is no literature, no evidence of any kind from that genre that could be used to support any of his interpretation. There is zero scholarship left, right or center to support any use of the Hebrew Text in Genesis, let alone the words he wants to prove, specifically yom, erev and boqer.
Moses is traditionally considered to have written the Pentateuch around the Late Bronze Age. There are no extent parallel Hebrew text from that genre for a proper textual or literary comparison. Therefore it is impossible for him to claim he is using the GH method for interpretation.
Biblical creationists interpret Genesis 1 using the historical-grammatical approach, which means taking the text plainly according to its literary genre. This approach understands Genesis 1 as historical narrative
Again he start by claiming something that he is either lying or ignorant about. Read my note on GH above.
The interpretation of the Genesis 1 account of creation is crucial in understanding discussions about evolution
No. I wish YEC would learn and think outside of their little bubble. But this does give an insight to their zeitgeist. YEC are driven by their fear of Darwinism and in turn created their jaundice view of Scripture and science.
if Genesis 1 teaches that creation took place in six 24-hour days
OK, I’ll bite. Now like a math problem show us the proof. From what source do you show that linguistically the word yom is 24-hours and historically how it was used. Given the fact that all Believers thinks Moses is the one who wrote this, which pegs it to a certain period in history.
The literary genre of Genesis 1 has been a much-debated issue among old-earth scholars who have given a number of suggestions to consider: legend,13 myth,14 poetry,15 theological history,16 hymn,17 and exalted prose narrative.18
Is he joking? What about the vast majority of inerrant Bible believing christians who believe in an old earth and that God created everything without Darwinian evolution or allegory?
First, the literature of Genesis 1:1–2:4 is plainly a narrative20
No. Bad start. The Claus Westermann reference is not sufficient to define it as a “plain” narrative, again whatever that means. How could we possibly know exactly what Moses meant when he use the word “yom”, which has various meaning throughout the Bible.
“Evening and Morning”: The recurring phrase “and there was evening and there was morning” that concludes each day of creation strongly suggests a normal solar day, as this is how a 24-hour period is commonly demarcated.4
This by far is YEC’s best argument, however, he is not using the GH method. Instead he tries to use the internal grammatical argument based on how these words are used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Unfortunately, he is so bias it makes him a poor exegete of the Bible. The phrase is certainly found elsewhere in the Bible with meanings other than a 24hr day. the Hebrew words for “evening” (‘erev) and “morning” (boqer) are derived from roots that mean “disorder/chaos” and “order/clarity,” respectively. A classic example is Psalm 30:5: “Weeping may tarry for the night (‘erev), but joy comes with the morning (boqer).” Here, the words are clearly metaphors for hardship and deliverance for a period of time. Erev demarcates an indefinite time of suffering before it is demarcated by its end with boqer.
Another usage of these words is in Exodus 12:38
38And also a mixed multitude went up with them and
W gam erev rav alah it am w
sheep and goats and cattle, very numerous livestock.
tson u vaqar, meod kaved miqneh.
Since we don’t have a GH context of how these words are used it would be fair to use the internal grammatical method, but by doing so we need to look at what these words mean throughout the Bible, not just Genesis 1.