Are the Genesis days 'ages'?

In an effort to make the Genesis text fit geological time it has been proposed by numerous people that the 6 days of creation are in fact a description of 6 ages, or long periods of time.

I don't think this is correct. The use of 'evening' and 'morning' to describe the extremities of each day signal to me that they are literal days that are being described.

But the argument comes back that the Hebrew word yom, that is translated 'day', is in other parts of scripture used to describe a period of time. This happens in expressions like 'in that day' where the writer is clearly pointing to a lengthy period of time much greater than 24 hours.

This may be true but the problem is that here yom is being used ias part of an idiomatic expression. If we remove the single word out of the whole phrase then it no longer still caries the whole phrase's meaning. For example, take the phrase "Watford played a long ball game". Here 'ball' is being used as part of an expression that means a type of pass in football. But if we take the word out of that context it is no longer correct to define ball as meaning pass. If it did then to say "Pass me the ball" would be a bit of a strange request.

This problem arises from trying to take a passage that was never intended to be a literal description of natural history and make it fit such a chronology.

What is so offensive about metaphysics?

Perhaps the most famous reading of Genesis chapter 1 was on Christmas Eve 1968 when the first ten verses were read from space via the Apollo 8 spacecraft.

Offence was taken by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an American atheist, who filed a lawsuit contesting that this was a violation of the separation between church and state.

This makes me ask the question, why do differing metaphysical views cause us such consternation? Why could she not accept it as an expression of someone else's faith, albeit one different to her own?

Undoubtedly whatever our worldview it is important to us, and for many of us it is important to try and share it with others. For the Christian the gospel is good news and therefore there is an imperative to share it. An atheist may look at religious wars and decide that for this reason they need to evangelise their own philosophy.

These can be seen as positive exertions of faith, but to actually go to the extent of complaining, or even suing someone, over the free expression of the poetry of Genesis 1 is baffling. Or is it?

We invest a great deal of ourselves in whatever our worldview is, so inevitably we will defend it. There is too the common need of 'I am right-ism' that makes us want to see other people finding our views persuasive.

This self-defence is a weakness. Those who are intellectually honest will accept the challenge to think and explore all possible alternatives without having to roll down the shutters. And those people will often be the less vocal and militant - because they don't need to be.

Marked contrasts

Whilst there have been some posts on this blog that highlight the ways in which Genesis relates itself to Ancient Near East mythologies, it is equally important to note the ways in which it contrasts.

In the ANE creation was made to serve the gods. But in the Genesis account creation is there for the benefit of humanity. The cosmos is good because it provides a home for us.

In the ANE people are also made to serve the gods, but in Genesis people are called into relationship with God, co-workers with him.

We really are the climax of creation.

The Bible and Mythology part 4

The emergence of dry land from the waters is a common element in Egyptian cosmology, and there it has a definite referent. That is, the emergence of the primeval hillock in cosmology reflectsnthe yearly relity of the fertile soil emerging in the aftermath of the inundation of the Nile. Thus it is clear that the emergence of dry land is associated with the growing of food.

The Lost World of Genesis 1 by John H Walton

Creation's Title

The first verse of Genesis 1, that grand opening statement, can be interpreted in a number of different ways.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Some commentators see this as being a pre-creation that occurred before the actions of the following verses but Walton disagrees. Of the term 'beginning' he says (p45):

In Hebrew usage this adverb typically introduces a period of time rather than a point in time. We can see this most easily in Job 8:7

which says...

Your beginnings will seem humble, so prosperous will your future be.

So what Walton is suggesting is that verse 1 is actually referring to the period of the creation that follows in the rest of the chapter.

This suggests that verse 1 serves as a literary introduction to the rest of the chapter. This suggestion is confirmed by the fact that Genesis 2:1 concludes the seven-day report with the statement that the "heavens and earth were completed"

Oh no! Its happened again!

Having a bad case of deja vu. Hope this one turns out to have a happy ending...

Functional not Material

I'm enjoying reading 'The Lost World of Genesis One' at the moment. I'm hoping there will be a few posts to extract from it! John Walton's book looks at Genesis 1 within its ANE context and builds the thesis that 'creation' in that setting means functional, and not material as presupposed in our 21st century understanding.

ANE mythology asked about the purpose of the world around it rather than how it came into material existence. Therefore the Biblical account reflects that definition of the creation concept. For example:

Throughout Genesis 1 any number of possible meanings have been proposed for "good". In the history of interpretation it has been often been understood in moral/ethical terms or as a reference to the quality of the workmanship. While the Hebrew term could be used in any of those ways, the context indicates a different direction. We can find out what the author means when saying all of these things are "good" by inquiring what it would mean for something not to be good. Fortunately the near context offers us just such an opportunity: "It is not good for man to be alone" (Gen 2:18). This verse has nothing to do with moral perfection or quality of workmanship - it is a comment concerning function. The human condition is not functionally complete without the woman. Thus throughout Genesis 1 the refrain "it was good" expressed the functional readiness of the cosmos for human beings.