Abstract
Genesis 1 challenges the reader’s imagination because there are different ways of looking at the text beside the conventional one. In one of the competing hypotheses, the book of Genesis 1 is a figurative approach as providing a narrative of a complete topical sequence of events that took place after the earth was created, detailed in volumes 2 to 31. The fact that Genesis 1 does not describe how the universe came into existence or how it developed into what it is in volume 2 is, therefore, one of the most compelling arguments in favor of a figurative narration. Other explanations include a figurative interpretation of a Hebrew text, such as the word “day” and the subsequent understanding of Creation Week. At the same time, the traditional 24-hours-a-day, young-earth approach rejects the concept that the world can be older than 6,000 years and claims that Noah’s flood was an essential part of the creation process.
Introduction
It is possible to assert that figurative interpretations of Genesis 1 became a topic of discussion in religious circles during the twentieth century. This theory, initially proposed in 1924, it suggests that the age of the earth is more significant than 6000 years, revealing the book of Genesis as a literary framework view1. The imaginative challenge posed by the Hebrew text continues to predominate as the primary focus of the argument constructed by the figurative approach.
In Tremper Longman’s opinion, the question of whether or not there was a genuine historical first couple is up for debate. This is because, according to Longman, Genesis 1–2 are examples of high-style literary prose2. This leads him to conclude that it is not necessary that Adam be a historical human for this book to be without error in what it aims to teach2. In his line of reasoning, Paul only applies the lessons that may be gleaned from the tale found in Genesis 1–2, but he does not necessarily consider the story to be true.
There are problems with how Longman reads Genesis 1 to 3. Throughout Genesis 1–5, he interprets much about Adam and his purpose, including that God created him directly. This leads to an extent where the reader must rely on their knowledge and research skills to identify which events are actual and which are not. When everything is presented as fact, another issue is how some of the details can be true while others are not. The flood, the Tower of Babel, Abraham, and other religious figures present similar concerns2. Generally, the text of Genesis 1–5 and Genesis 1–11 does not include any internal clues suggesting that they should be interpreted symbolically.
In Genesis 1, the Hebrew term “day (yĂ´m)” is used to describe God’s creation of day and night by dividing light from darkness and to list God’s other creations (heaven, earth, lights, sea, and living creatures). However, proponents of figurative approaches argue that “day” in Genesis 1 should not be understood literally as “today”3.This viewpoint stresses that there was no day-by-day sequencing even when listing God’s creation in Gen 1. Therefore, “day” represents succession without specifying time intervals in the illustrative method.
Additionally, the seven days of creation are not to be taken literally or in chronological order in a figurative interpretation. This is because the days of creation should not be interpreted as a literal solar day count. On the other hand, the seven-day structure is a literary device frequently utilized in ancient Near Eastern literature to indicate fullness or completion4. Additionally, the Hebrew text’s use of ordinal, cardinal, and definite numbers in discussing the seven-day structure indicates a scheme of literary framework interpretation. Due to this, Creation Week is not viewed as a series of events that might be made to happen in seven days but rather as a series of events that occur one after another within a time frame that is unknowable, that is, a topical sequence.
There is no mention of the earth’s creation date in figurative theories. Interestingly, the idea of creation “ex nihilo” (from nothing) entered Greek philosophy via Christian writings of the second century. Gen 1.1-2.3 was allegedly written in ancient (pre-Greek) times, which means that “the concepts of creation ex nihilo and creation ex materia would have been unfamiliar to the biblical text,” according to experts3. This connection lends credence to the idea that Genesis 1 is meant to be interpreted symbolically. Due to this symbolic interpretation, God could not create the world from anything; the events mentioned constitute an abstract of the sequence that occurred, with the beginnings of the world left out of the text.
Response to the Old-Earth View
The traditional 24-hour day perspective of Genesis 1 represents the solar day metaphor, which means that all creations occurred within the seven days known as Creation Week. The authors of young Earth creationism argue that it is against human nature to think in “long times,” and as a result, a figurative picture of the “day” is false. This conventional view holds that the earth is relatively new, having first appeared 6,000 years ago5. According to this theory, the terrible events that occurred during Noah’s global deluge explain away any evidence that the earth is older than 6,000 years. Conventional wisdom holds that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old because debris was buried and the landscape was altered during the cataclysm.
Both the traditional and figurative perspectives agree regarding the order of creative events. On the other hand, the traditional interpretation holds that the early unformed state of the world is represented by 1:2 with reference to the earth of v. 13. This suggests that the Earth in Genesis 1 is still immature and not in its final shape. Furthermore, the young-Earth view maintains that the events described in Genesis 1 are not figurative but rather describe the actual creation of days, nights, and heaven, albeit in their preliminary stages before being refined in later chapters. The definition of “day,” which can mean anything from a few minutes to a few years, depending on one’s perspective, is at the heart of the various methods’ fundamental disagreements.
All the interpretations of Genesis 1 revolve around Noah’s deluge. While some theories strongly emphasize it (such as the young-Earth theory), others dismiss it as a geological non-event. Historically, it has been held that the circumstances for life on earth were set by Noah’s flood (provided fossils and rearranged surface)1. Since no one stresses a symbolic interpretation of Noah’s flood, thus there are no heated discussions over rearranging the events of the Bible’s canon.
This idea of the old earth necessitates fundamental modifications to the Christian doctrine of Creation Week. Article 5.1 of the Westminster Confession, which took place in 1646, contains the fundamental theological assertion that “it pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for…, to create, or make of nothing, the universe… in the space of six days”4. This runs counter to many aspects of the symbolic perspective since it considers six days equivalent to 24 hours in a solar system.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is essential to note that there have been numerous ideas regarding the meaning of Noah’s deluge, the definition of “day,” and the age of the earth. However, a figurative interpretation lends credence to the old-Earth idea. It holds that the days of Creation Week are only a literary framework in which the word “day” stands for unspecified intervals of history. The conventional understanding, which supports a young Earth (6000 years), defines a “day” as 24 hours; hence this interpretation is quite different. The most convincing arguments take a figurative approach to the problem at hand. For instance, those that use grammatical analysis of the Hebrew text and geological evidence of an old Earth to solve a problem of imaginative creation. The fact that the idea of “ex nihilo” did not appear in Greek philosophy until far later than the writing of Genesis 1 further convinces me that Creation Week is merely a chronological listing. However, the idea that ancient peoples thought of extended ages as an explanation for their old-Earth beliefs is not convincing.
Bibliography
Carter, Robert. “Review: ‘Traced’ by Nathaniel Jeanson.” Creation.com | Creation Ministries International. Web.
Ham, Ken. “Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth?” Answers in Genesis, Web.
Jeanson, Dr. Nathaniel T. “Y Chromosome Clocks Confirm Post-Columbian History.” Answers in Genesis, Web.
Longman, Tremper. “Interpreting Genesis 1-11 with Tremper Longman – Resource.” BioLogos, Web.
Samec, R., and E. R. Figg. “The Apparent Age of the Time Dilated Universe I: Gyrochronology, Angular Momentum Loss in Close Solar Type Binaries: Semantic Scholar.” Undefined, Web.
Footnotes
- Dr. Nathaniel T. Jeanson, “Y Chromosome Clocks Confirm Post-Columbian History,” Answers in Genesis, Web.
- Tremper Longman, “Interpreting Genesis 1-11 with Tremper Longman – Resource,” BioLogos, Web.
- Robert Carter, “Review: ‘Traced’ by Nathaniel Jeanson,” Creation.com | Creation Ministries International, Web.
- Ken Ham, “Does the Gospel Depend on a Young Earth?,” Answers in Genesis, Web.
- R. Samec and E. R. Figg, “The Apparent Age of the Time Dilated Universe I: Gyrochronology, Angular Momentum Loss in Close Solar Type Binaries: Semantic Scholar,” Undefined, Web.