Should Genesis 1-2 be taken literally?

Should Genesis 1-2 be taken literally?

First question: what is literally? In this case, let's say that "literally" means that the days of Genesis 1 were consecutive 24-hour days, and that the events described as having taken place during these days took place as Genesis 1 indicates that they did, in the order given. I also stipulate that "literally" means that the events in Genesis 2 took place as described, in order as given.

The creative events in Genesis 1 (See here for link to that chapter. I have linked to the public domain World English Bible, but all commonly used English translations may be accessed easily from that page.) may be listed as follows:
Day 1: light (verses 3-5)
Day 2: sky (?) separating clouds from surface water (The King James says "firmament.")

Note added June 17, 2022: there is no firmament. Answers in Genesis, the most important young-earth creationist organization, does not believe that there was one. See here. That means that taking Genesis 1:6-7 literally does not make sense.

 
Day 3: dry land, land plants
Day 4: sun, moon, stars
Day 5: moving water creatures, birds
Day 6: land animals, humans

The events in Genesis 2 are as follows:
1: Adam (verse 7)
2. A garden (verse 8)
3. Animals created (verses 19-20)
4. Eve created (verses 21-22)

Genesis 2 is often taken to be a re-telling of the events in Genesis 1, or as a passage putting Genesis 1 in context. But, whatever Genesis 2 was meant to do, the sequence of events is not the same as those in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, Adam comes before the garden, and before the animals. Thus, Genesis 1 and 2 cannot both be taken literally, if literally means what was specified in the beginning of this post.

There are other problems with taking Genesis 1 and 2 literally:

* The various days, as described, begin with the word "let," for example "let there be," in verse 14. But Genesis 1:2, which indicates that there was a formless creation, probably covered with water, comes before "let there be light," in verse 3. Was there, then, creation before day 1?
* What was the source of light in day 1? (The sun was mentioned first in day 4.)
* "Day" is used in Genesis 1, with the apparent (but perhaps not literal) meaning of 24-hour day. However, in Genesis 2:4, which summarizes the creation, it can't mean 24-hour day. Also, the Blueletter Bible gives several different meanings for yowm, the Hebrew word translated as "day," in Genesis 1, and also in Genesis 2:4.
* (added April 7, 2020) Here's a post on how Young-Earth Creationists haven't fully explored the use of yowm in the Bible.

For more on this topic, see J. Richard Middleton, "What is the Relationship Between the Creation Accounts in Genesis 1 and 2?" 

Thanks for reading. 

Added March 4, 2020:
I have come across two posts from Answers in Genesis. They suggest that some Bible translations do not translate a Hebrew word correctly, and that where Genesis 2 is translated as "19 Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field ..." in the World English Bible, and other versions, it should have been translated as "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals ..." [emphasis added] as in the New International Version, and two other translations. (The rest of the 14 translations given in the Blueletter Bible use "formed.") The translation that they prefer could resolve the seeming discrepancy between Genesis 1 and 2, as to the timing of the creating of the land animals vs. the creation of Adam, but the translation is not preferred in most versions.

But there is still a difficulty with the comparison of Genesis 1 and 2, for those who hold that both should be taken literally.  In verse 9 of Genesis 2, it says "Out of the ground Yahweh God made every tree to grow ...". If that should have been "Out of the ground Yahweh God had made every tree to grow ...", none of the 14 English translations in the Blue Letter Bible do so. Thus, there seems to be a contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, as to the sequence of land plants and humans. (Adam is mentioned in Genesis 2:7, before the mention of land plants.)

This is one post on Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 by Answers in Genesis. This is the other. The first one does not mention Genesis 2:9.

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative? Genesis 1 and 2

The Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith says, in part: “The account of origins presented in Genesis 1–11 is a simple but factual presentation of actual events, and therefore, provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.” … and “The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages but are six consecutive, 24-hour days of creation; …”

Two previous posts (genre, and culture) on this blog describe the effect of genre, and of the culture of the writers, and listeners/readers, in ancient times, on what the Bible communicates. Those effects, and other reasons, indicate that Genesis 1-2, in particular, is not simple, and does not necessarily communicate consecutive events. 

 

Let’s consider the questions of simplicity and of consecutive events.

 

Genesis 1 puts the creation of humans, male and female, on Day 6. If Genesis 2 does, it doesn’t do so simply. Adam comes at the beginning, and Eve at the end, in chapter 2. It is possible to reconcile these accounts on this point, but, to do so, one must depart from a “plain reading of scripture.*” Genesis 1 also puts land plants in day 3, before the creation of humans, whereas Genesis 2 seems to put Adam before the plants. Genesis 1 puts the creation of animals on day 6, whereas Genesis 2 appears to put that creation after the appearance of Adam. Answers in Genesis, and others, believe that Genesis 2:19 should be translated to say that God “had formed” -- already done it -- before presenting the animals to Adam. Perhaps, but only four of the Bible versions given in the Blueletter Bible say that. The other thirteen say “formed,” as if it happened as they were presented to Adam. One of the four that says “had formed” gives “formed" as an alternate reading.

There are many God-fearing, Christ-believing Bible scholars who are convinced that Genesis 1 and 2 were not intended to be step-by-step historical narrative, and/or who do not think that their purpose was to establish the timing of creation. Listen to N. T. Wright, for one.

There are other reasons for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to give us a step-by-step historical narrative of the creation. God willing, I shall continue this series.

Answers in Genesis zealously defends the Bible, if the Bible needs any defense, but they propose at least one really strange idea of how to look at the Bible.

*Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, “Pausing for a Leaven warning,” March 2, 2023, writes “we should always be suspicious when the secular world proclaims anything at odds with a plain reading of Scripture.” That phrase, “plain reading of scripture,” is claimed as the foundation of Answers in Genesis, the most influential young-earth entity.

Question on the meaning of Genesis 2, especially on the meaning of "day"

This is the first part of Genesis 2 (ESV) (I'm reading the ESV through this year, I hope, using one of their plans to do so):
2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

The Creation of Man and Woman

4 These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 When no bush of the field [1] was yet in the land [2] and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist [3] was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 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.

Footnotes

[1] 2:5 Or open country
[2] 2:5 Or earth; also verse 6
[3] 2:6 Or spring


It struck me, as it never had before, that there is a puzzle here. Genesis 2 apparently says that humans were created before plants were. Genesis 1, taken literally, says that plants were created on the third day, and humans on the sixth. I am not a Hebrew scholar, but the translation above, also the NIV and the NASB, seem to say that there were no plants growing until Adam was created. Here's the ASV, which is public domain:

Gen 2:5

And no plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Jehovah God had not caused it to rain upon the earth: and there was not a man to till the ground;

So what's going on? Well, it seems to me that Genesis 2:5 is scriptural evidence that the days of creation of Genesis 1 are not meant to be taken literally. (Exodus 20:11 seems to be evidence that they were.)

I knew that Meredith G. Kline, who was a Bible scholar, had written about Genesis 2:5 as evidence for non-literal days, and that knowledgeable Christian blogger Jeremy Pierce had written about this subject also, and that neither had argued that correctly interpreting Genesis demands that the days of Genesis 1 were literal, but reading this passage in the ESV reminded me forcefully of this matter.

Any comments?

* * * * *

Note added Jan 24: There have been enough comments that I plan to post again on this subject. Also, I entered it in this week's Christian Carnival, so it may get a few more readers, who may also deserve some sort of response.

A Biblical Case for an Old Earth, by David Snoke, part 8

I continue my posts on David Snoke's A Biblical Case for an Old Earth (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006). The most recent post is here. In that post, I considered some of Snoke's biblical evidence that the days of Genesis 1, and of Genesis 2:1-3, were not necessarily consecutive 24-hour days.

Snoke has more evidence. On page 141, he points out that Genesis 2:4, which, of course, comes right after Genesis 2:3, uses "day" to refer to a period of time that clearly is not a 24-hour day:

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were created,
in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. (ESV, emphasis added. All scripture quotations from this version.)

(Not all versions of the Bible use "day" here -- the NIV and the NLT do not, but at least the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB and the RSV, as well as the ESV, use "day." I checked the Hebrew -- I do not know Hebrew, but can look it up, using an option in the Blueletter Bible -- and the Hebrew word used in Genesis 1 and in Genesis 2:4 is the same word, as far as I can tell.)

Mr. Snoke says, correctly, that young-earth proponents often recognize that "day" is used in the Bible for periods longer than a 24-hour period, but say that when "evening" and "morning" are used with "day," it always means a literal day. Not so, he says, citing Psalm 90, which is usually attributed to Moses, who apparently wrote Genesis:

3 You return man to dust

and say, “Return, O children of man!”
4 For a thousand years in your sight
are but as yesterday when it is past,
or as a watch in the night.

5 You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream,
like grass that is renewed in the morning:
6 in the morning it flourishes and is renewed;
in the evening it fades and withers.

A day, yesterday, is said to be like a thousand years, and evening and morning are used in the same passage. The Hebrew word for yesterday is not the same as the Hebrew word for day, used in the passages above, and doesn't even seem to have been derived from it, which weakens Snoke's argument. Snoke mentions other passages which use evening and morning in a non-literal sense, namely Psalm 30:4-5, Psalm 49:14, and Psalm 90:10, 13-14, but they don't use a word for "day," or even "yesterday."

On page 144-5, Snoke says, again correctly, that some young-earth advocates agree that "day," and "morning and evening" can refer to non-literal periods of time, but say that if days are numbered, they must be literal 24-hour days. Snoke's response is that Genesis 1 is the only occasion where the Bible uses numbers with days, in this way, so there is no way to check this claim. He mentions Numbers 29, but says that the construction is quite different.

Snoke discusses Genesis 2:5-7:
5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 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.

I have posted on this passage previously, and, in that post, link to two other, more important authors, both of whom argue, as Snoke does, that this passage is difficult, or impossible, to reconcile with Genesis 1, if Genesis 1 is taken to mean consecutive 24-hour periods when it uses "day."

To quote A Biblical Case for an Old Earth: Note that if the land had emerged from the waters just three days earlier (assuming that these events [of Genesis 2:5-7] happen on Day 6, and the land appeared from under the waters on Day 3, in the young-earth view), then it hardly makes sense that the land would be dry and unfertile. For that matter, giving any discussion of causation for the lack of vegetation seems out of place, if the land had only just appeared. The sense of the text is that the land had been around a long time, so long that it had dried out. (p. 153) The young-earth view is that the events happened on day 6.

Snoke also writes about the rivers mentioned in Genesis 2. He says that the Pishon river (no river now existing is named that) was most likely a river that flowed across the Arabian peninsula in the past. (The other rivers, the Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates, still exist.) He cites Carol Hill (See here for her paper -- Snoke mistakenly calls her "Caroline.") as evidence for this claim.

As Snoke says, these rivers present a serious problem for young-earth creationism:
. . . this river lies on top of sedimentary geological layers that young-earth creationists would say were deposited in the flood of Noah. So do the Euphrates and Tigris rivers. To accept this convincing case for the historicity of Genesis, Bible scholars must either accept an old-earth view or believe that God created sedimentary rock at the beginning, before the fall and the flood. (p. 155. "this river" is the Pishon.)

It seems to me that Snoke has assembled evidence, as presented here and in the previous posts, that makes it difficult to sustain an argument for young-earth creationism.

Thanks for reading.