Which leads me to what made me write this. A fellow named Logan has started arguing the literalist view of Genesis 1-2 in the comments section of the article in which I first expressed doubts about the historical content of the two chapters. Watch as we try to talk to each other and wind up talking past. The stakes are high, and we’re not even agreed on basic hermeneutical method.

These are thoughts still in the process of forming.  Forgive me for thinking them out loud.

For seven years now I have been an odd bird among my peers for insisting on the literal historicity of Genesis 1-11.  I have been able to do this with what has seemed to many a strange lack of attachment to the creation/evolution arguments over what science is and what it tells us about creation.

This is because of my belief in the message of scripture.  I have been and continue to be fully convinced that what God is telling us in scripture is true, regardless of what anyone, including an entire public school system and the vast majority of the scientists at almost all non-confessional institutions, should say to the contrary.

For me the question comes down to one simple question: what is the author of Genesis trying to communicate in those first two chapters? I was raised believing that the text was telling us exactly what it seemed to be telling us: that the world was created in six days, that a man and a woman were created and placed in a garden, and that they then lived, as folks did in those days, nearly a thousand years.

Early in my life (before age 5) I heard of evolutionists, but dismissed them as contradicting the Bible. My experience later in life seemed to back up my initial reaction, as every evolutionist I ever discussed these matters with was either an unbeliever who scoffed at the Bible in general, or a Christian who could not articulate why he chose science over scripture.

I read widely from a very young age, loads and loads of literature from the works of young-earth creations, and a great many anti-creationist works by non-Christians. I even read a few books by Christians who taught against a literal understanding of Genesis, including Hugh Ross’s Creation and Time. His work struck me, and still strikes me, as an absurd attempt to harmonize modern scientific findings and ancient text. In his attempt he does violence to both. Other works by Christians who urged surrender to biologists generally said insipid things like, “The Bible isn’t a science textbook,” as though that would explain why God misunderstood his own world, or “God was writing to primitive people,” as though God couldn’t have communicated his love and guidance to ancient people without peppering his speech with bold-faced lies.

Uninterested in anti-biblical talk of any kind and embarrassed by fellow Christians who so easily sold out the Bible for acceptability, I persevered on as a six-day creationist. I never hesitated during this time period to admit that there were plenty of things I couldn’t explain as a creationist, such as why all the marsupials wound up in Australia, why our DNA appears to created for the sort of evolution we observe happening quickly among viruses and more slowly among dogs and radishes and fishes, and a number of other such things.

I could, of course, point to a number of things that I think atheistic evolution cannot explain, such as how what appear to be irreducibly complex systems emerged, or how abiogenesis could possibly occur despite there being no credible mechanism proposed for it by any scientist anywhere. And so, realizing that to my eyes the data appeared mixed, I sided with God’s word, because that is what I believe most firmly.

I was puzzled and a bit disturbed by certain things observed in the natural world, especially things that seemed to point toward evolutionary processes. I was willing to admit that I did not reject evolution because of any scientific evidence, but because I simply accept God’s word. I told people on multiple occasions that if I were ever to be convinced of anything other than literal six-day creationism, I would have first be convinced that the Genesis text was not preaching literal six-day creationism. What scientists thought was and continues to be a side issue.

I took a class on ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian mythology, and by reading translations of ancient myths got a feel for how Abraham’s birthplace and Moses’ birthplace treated stories. It appeared that stories, even stories that were tremendously important, were passed down in a much more highly creative way than I would have ever imagined. Stories were tweaked and improved upon and altered over time. In some stories, the major parts of the story would stay the same, but the transmitters of the story would rework and combine stories, developing them in such a way that it seemed clear that these Ancient Near Easterners, who looked to stories to explain the world, did not see those stories as anything resembling what we would call history.

And most notably, there were no warning tags on any of the works, nothing like, “This is a metaphor,” or “This is historical,” or “This is something I modified.” The audience was just expected to figure that stuff out, or else the writers/readers made it clear verbally.

Both civilizations seemed to have existed about as early as 3000 B.C. That just seemed to be pretty clear, although it’s about 700 years too early for any post-flood people according to the genealogies of Genesis.

The genealogies of Genesis, oddly enough, had their own counterparts, including some mythologies which so closely paralleled them that they contained ten kings living much longer periods of time. The dates and names given varied significantly, as though it was the general story of long-lived pre-flood demigods that mattered, not the details. It rather reminded of how we vary details when we retell stories from our own lives. We may try not to, but we constantly catch ourselves and others doing it.

But none of this got to me. After all, we could not trust the writings of pagans above the Bible. I became convinced, however, that the Biblical accounts of both creation, the genealogies, and the flood were carefully crafted “answers” to the pagan equivalents, playing up God, playing down all other heavenly beings, and making the components of nature created things rather than creative forces. Nevertheless, I continued to be quite certain that in addition to being an alternate story deliberately created to counter the other myths, the Genesis accounts were also real history.

The genealogies remind me of something else: the massive variations that occur in dates between Josephus, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Masoretic Text. It is clear to anyone who compares the dates that the changes we are dealing with in the dates are not random errors, but rather contain clear evidence of systematic alteration.

Now, it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that all four (Josephus, Samaritans, Jews, and the Jews and Christians passing down the Septuagint) considered the stories in the text to be of utmost importance. No group felt the liberty to do any serious rewriting of Genesis, and yet it would seem that it also seems that these same groups felt pretty comfortable changing dates. If so, we learn two things. Firstly, that the oldest caretakers of the scripture that we know of seemed to regard the dates as important enough to pass on, while flexible enough to alter at will. And yet there appears to be no reason for people so careful to pass down texts by painstaking copying to engage in such seemingly petty fraud. This is not the way historians behave. This is not the way historical documents are treated.

There are, I am certain, a vast number of other related issues that must be discussed eventually. But I’ll move this toward a conclusion.

I was looking just hours ago through Genesis 2, proofreading the World English Bible translation, when suddenly a verse hit me with such force that I do not think it could have been much clearer if God himself had read it aloud.

No wild plant of the field was yet on the earth, and no cultivated grains of the field had yet sprouted, because יהוה God had not yet produced rain on the earth, and because there was no man to till the ground.

I can try as hard as I can, but I simply cannot reconcile this verse in the second version of creation with the account in Genesis 1.  In Genesis 1, plants simply do not wait on mankind and rain.  They are all created by God not only before mankind, but even before there was sun.

Yes, I’m sure there’s some mental gymnastics I could go through to make everything work.

But I can only maintain the six days as historical truth if I can find some way to effectively deny Genesis 2:5.  And I am not willing to manipulate God’s words into saying something they do not say to fit them around a set framework.

After all, my unwillingness to manipulate God’s word to make it say what I want to say is exactly what made me a young-earth creationist for my entire life.

I don’t know where exactly to go from here.  This is not me accepting some alternate scheme.  This is not even me accepting evolutionary theory.

There’s far too many things I need to think through before I can say one way or another how scripture and creation work.  But I cannot escape what seems to be clear from the biblical text itself:  that the first two chapters of Genesis simply do not describe a single, unified and literally historical story.

I do not know exactly where to go from this.

But I am confident of this:  that my belief in God, his Son, his People, and his Writings is secure.  My understanding of his books may be subject to change, but that is nothing more than me expressing my puzzlement at his ways.  Even when he says things that make me extremely uncomfortable.

To God be all glory, honor, and praise forever.  Amen.

4 These are toldot of the sky and the earth when they were created, on the day Jehovah God made the earth and the sky, 5 and every plant of the field before it was on the earth, and every herb of the field before it had sprouted, because Jehovah God had not made it rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.

Now, call me an overly simplistic reader, but it looks like it’s pretty clear that the text is saying that plants didn’t exist yet because A) there had been no rain yet, and B) there wasn’t anyone to cultivate plants.  Which is exactly what the creation story in Genesis 1 would suggest is impossible, given the creation of plants on day 3 and man on day 6.

This idea has become like a raspberry seed of contradiction in my wisdom tooth of young-earth creationism.  Yes, I may pretend that the raspberry seed is insignificant, but my tongue of logic will inevitably find itself working away at the seed again, seeing if it can dislodge it somehow.  I try to remind myself that the seed is insignificant, but it worries me.  After all, a bit of food lodged in a wisdom tooth frequently causes it to rot, leaving one with a wisdom tooth with a giant hole in it.  Or, my worried mind anxiously says, the raspberry seed could grow into a full-fledged shrub of the field.  But the raspberry seed itself is not the problem.  My tongue is very persistent and stronger than it looks.  Eventually it will twist itself around and get creative and dislodge the seed in a spectacular display of dexterity.  But even if the seed is dislodged, a problem remains.  All this attention I’ve paid to the problems in the wisdom tooth causes me to question whether the wisdom tooth should even be there.  Perhaps I should heed the professionals and just remove it altogether.  I’ve had issues with it before.  Most of the other kids my age have already gotten rid of theirs, and at least one never had hers grow in at all.  She appears to be in good enough health.

Wow.  That metaphor really went a lot farther than I expected it to.

But you get the picture.

2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. 2:19 And out of the ground Jehovah God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 2:20 And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him.

WEB Genesis 2:18-20

2:18 Yahweh God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 2:19 Out of the ground Yahweh God formed every animal of the field, and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 2:20 The man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for man there was not found a helper suitable for him.

V19. Change “heavens” to “sky” for consistency with Genesis 1:8.
V19. Omit first comma as unnecessary pause.
V20. Tightened up the wording of the last part.

New Genesis 2:18-20

18 Jehovah God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground Jehovah God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. Whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field; but for the man no helper was found suitable for him.

2:1 And the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it; because that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and made.

WEB Genesis 2:1-3

2:1 The heavens and the earth were finished, and all their vast array. 2:2 On the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 2:3 God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy, because he rested in it from all his work which he had created and made.

V2. That semicolon’s got to go.
V3. That first comma can go too.

New Genesis 2:1-3

1 The heavens and the earth were finished, and all their vast array. 2 On the seventh day God finished his work which he had made, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 3 God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because he rested in it from all his work which he had created and made.

I speak of Young’s English Translation, which is a delightful exercise in hyperliteralism.  At the link I such referenced, to biblegateway.com, you can see clearly that biblegateway.com claims that

Obvious errors in spelling or inconsistent spellings of the same word were corrected in the computer edition of the text.

And while their striving for accuracy is admirable, I shall play the role of critic here and announce that they have “missed a spot.”  That spot is in Genesis 2:14,

¹³and the name of the second river [is] Gibon, it [is] that which is surrounding the whole land of Cush;

The name of the second river is not Gibon, but Gihon, an error explained by the fact that the English b and h are rather similar at first glance.   For what it’s worth, my e-Sword copy has the same problem, as does my facsimile copy of Genesis which I found some time back.  I wish I had a link to a facsimile of Young’s to link to.

I’ve already explored my views on this blog on several occasions (including this), so I won’t try to retread all that ground, but I would like to comment on a few things said in the BioLogos article.

First, the BioLogos article points out some interesting parallels between the Adam story and the foundation of Israel:  in both cases God creates for himself a society in miraculous ways from a beginning of chaos, in both cases this new society is placed in a very specific and fertile tract of land to keep and cultivate it, in both cases there is a command from God given as a condition for staying in the land, in both cases the command is disobeyed, and in both cases the people are exiled from their homeland and scattered upon the face of the earth.  And on top of those parallels, I’ve got a few more swimming in my head that the BioLogos foundation didn’t mention.

And although there’s some difficulty ‘proving’ textual parallels, I think there are certain clear parallels between the Adam and Israel stories.  And I say this not as a point of argument but as something I hope people of various beliefs can agree upon–the existence of parallel ideas has a place in both literalistic and non-literalistic views of Genesis 1/2.  The non-literalist who works from the viewpoint of ‘Adam is Israel’ can appreciate the Adam story as a universalization of the experience of Israel expressed in historical/mythical fiction.  The literalist, who believes these things actually historically happened, can appreciate the emphatic repetition of certain points in history as a sort of creative history-shaping literary art of God.  And so the existence of these parallels fits comfortably within a variety of literary and historical viewpoints on Genesis, and for this I am thankful that BioLogos published what they did.

And now a quote from Peter Enns:

If we see Adam as a story of Israelite origins, it will help us make sense of at least one nagging question that begins in Genesis 4:13—one that readers of Genesis, past and present, have picked up on. After Cain kills Abel, he is afraid of a posse coming after him, which casually presumes the existence of other people. So God puts a mark on Cain and exiles him to Nod, a populated city to the east. There he takes a wife and they have a child, Enoch, and Cain proceeds to build a city, named after his son, in which others can live.

Now here it appears to me, though I could be missing some crucial details, that Peter Enns is, I assume unintentionally, making stuff up to support his argument.  In trying to support his view that Adam and Eve were only some of the people alive in the setting of early Genesis, Peter Enns tells us that Cain is afraid of a “posse coming after him.”  This phraseology conjures up pictures of a sprawling world covered in little boom towns which send out teams of men on horseback to impose switch justice on the bad guys.  Let’s compare this with what the biblical text says:

(4:14)[Cain said to God,] Look, you’ve driven me today from the surface of the earth, and I will be hidden from your face;  and I will be fugitive and wanderer in the earth;  and it will happen that any person who finds me will kill me.

No mention of a posse.  Cain is not afraid of an angry mob, but rather ‘any person,’ any single person.  And why would Cain assume that whoever he encountered would kill him?  I propose that this is not consistent with a model of a fully populated world, with the Adamic family being only a small part.  I propose that such fear of running into ‘any person’ is far more consistent with a world where only Adam and his descendents exist.  So it seems to me that the verse Peter Enn’s erroneously and indirectly cites works against him rather than for him.  The evidence suggests that it is Enns, and not Cain, who is ‘casually presuming’ things on this count.

Second on his list of problems with a humankind-story of Genesis is the issue of “Nod, a populated city.”  Certainly, it would seem that the existence of a populated city would be a quick and simple proof that the Adamic family was only a portion of humankind at the time of Cain’s flight.  But there are three problems with this argument.  First, there is no indication whatsoever in the account that Nod was a city.  Second, there is no indication in the text that Nod was populated.  And third, it is not even clear that the pre-translation text of the story indicated that there was a Nod.  (I’d like to blog about the existence of Nod in a little while, but for now, you can check the Latin Vulgate and Young’s Literal Translation and see if you can find Nod in there anywhere as a starting point for thinking about it.)

All that’s left after these two attempts is Peter Enns’ belief that there is a difficulty in Cain finding a wife and founding a city.  He presents a simple solution but then dismisses it:

Some have solved this problem by saying that Adam and Eve had a lot more children that Genesis simply neglects to mention, and so Cain married his sister. I suppose if one must, one can take refuge in this explanation. But this scenario seems a bit desperate—not to mention uncomfortable. Plus, this explanation is completely made up.

Here again Enns does violence to the Biblical account.  He believes, first of all, that the Biblical accounts “neglects to mention” “more children,” and that “this explanation is completely made up.”  Again, he ignores a crucial part of the story in his attempt to make a point:

And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were 800 years, and he fathered sons and daughters.  And all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

The Biblical text explicitly tells us that Adam’s 930-year life included unnamed sons and daughters.  It would go almost without saying that he would be expected to have a lot of them, given his lifespan.  If I remember rightly, there is a tradition that there were 56 of them, but the number does not make any difference to me.  Enough to say that Enns accusation of extra children being made up is in serious error.

Furthermore, Enns mentions the uncomfortableness of sibling marriage, as though this is an argument against the possibility of sibling marriage in a story.  But regardless of how uncomfortable the topic is, the Bible mentions, without approval or condemnation, a number of very close marriages/relations.  Take, for example, Abraham’s marriage to his father’s daughter Sarah.  Or Isaac’s marriage to his cousin.  Or Jacob’s marriage to his cousin.  Or Lot’s fathering of his own grandchildren by his daughters.  Or Amram’s marriage to his aunt Yokaved.  Or Absalom’s infamous rape of his half-sister Tamar.

I will quote Enns again:

Genesis neither says nor hints that the residents of Nod are Adam and Eve’s offspring. They are just “there.”

The truth of the matter, as mentioned above, is that Genesis neither says nor hints that the residents of Nod (if Genesis does indeed include a Nod) exist.  They just aren’t “there.”  And while argues that the Biblical doesn’t at all hint at the concept that everyone was descended from Adam and Eve, he is skipping yet another important part of the story:

And Adam called his wife by the name “Eve,” because she was the mother of all living.  (3:20)

Yet again Peter Enns uses the already dubious argument from silence with references to topics about which the Bible is not silent.

My conclusion:  If anyone wants to argue a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, that perfectly fine.  Scripture has all sorts of metaphor in it, and we shouldn’t automatically decide that Genesis can’t have metaphors.   But if you’re going to argue a non-literal interpretation by selectively using only parts of the account, don’t twist those parts.  And don’t pretend things that are said in the account aren’t.  Especially if your account is based on the accusation that the pro-literal people are ignoring parts of the text.