EDIT: I thought this might be a nice quote to keep in mind when reading this. Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Hi All,
I am going to give a different interpretation to what is come here and I don't think it will be overly popular. The reason I am doing this is that I think it is worth knowing that there are other interpretations held by Christians and that a literal YEC is not the default position in Christianity world wide. I am not asking anyone to believe this just an opportunity to see another point of view. OK
I would first note that a literal versus an allegorical interpretation of the Genesis creation account has an awful long history. There has been debate back and forward over this for some time so i just want to trace the history of the allegorical interpretation a little bit as I assume the literal interpretation is self evident.
Historical Jewish Interpretations:
In the past and even now there is division in the Jewish community relating to whether a literal or allegorical interpretation was most important. Around Paul's time and especially influential for Paul education was a dominate allegorical method. This method did not deny a literal interpretation but it did suggest that the mystical truth of scripture was to be found at the hidden or allegorical level. Some took this further to suggest that taking a purely literal interpretation was wrong, unhelpful and that other better literal accounts of creation were available else where. This was OK for many as the literal was only seen as packaging surrounding deep and mystical allegorical truths (The obvious mystical truth for the Gen account would be the God made the world and is better than ever other God). Here is a quote for a contemporary Rabbi of Paul which illustrates this view:
"If a man looks upon the Torah as merely a book presenting narratives and everyday matters, alas for him! Such a torah, one treating with everyday concerns, and indeed a more excellent one, we too, even we, could compile. More than that, in the possession of the rulers of the world there are books of even greater merit, and these we could emulate if we wished to compile some such torah. But the Torah, in all of its words, holds supernal truths and sublime secrets.
Thus the tales related in the Torah are simply her outer garments, and woe to the man who regards that outer garb as the Torah itself, for such a man will be deprived of portion in the next world. Thus David said:" Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law" (Psalms 119:18), that is to say, the things that are underneath. See now. The most visible part of a man are the clothes that he has on, and they who lack understanding, when they look at the man, are apt not to see more in him than these clothes. In reality, however, it is the body of the man that constitutes the pride of his clothes, and his soul constitutes the pride of his body.
Woe to the sinners who look upon the Torah as simply tales pertaining to things of the world, seeing thus only the outer garment. But the righteous whose gaze penetrates to the very Torah, happy are they. Just as wine must be in a jar to keep, so the Torah must also be contained in an outer garment. That garment is made up of the tales and stories; but we, we are bound to penetrate beyond."
Early Christian Allegory:
There is biblical evidence that Paul saw value in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis and that such interpretations could hold important aspects of truth. As is reflected by the following verse:
"For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. The child of the slave was born according to the flesh; the child of the free woman was born through the promise. Now this is being allegorized: for these women are two covenants. One, indeed, is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. This is Hagar, for Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is a slave with her children. But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother." Galatians 4:22-26
Clearly Paul is not disavowing a literal interpretation but it is evidence that allegory and its link to truth are deeply embedded in early Christianity.
Again this allegorical level of the creation account is supported in early Christian doctrine in three ways.
A literal and Allegorical account:
This is that many 1 and 2 century Christians took Gen to be a literal account but did not believe in a literal interpretation of day as 24 hour. An example from i believe 2nd century:
"For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject." (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 81)
A only allegorical account:
Other early and very influential Christian teachers supported a purely allegorical interpretation of the Gen creation stories. Suggesting them only as allegories to explain God as creator and ruler of all. Origen is the best example here as he spells it out clearly and was extremely influential in early Christian thinking. Here is a quote from around 100-185 AD:
"For who that has understanding will sup pose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, ex isted without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indi cate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally." (De Principiis IV, 3, 1 [6]).
The comparative approach:
This is Augustine's baby (arguable the most influential Christian behind Paul). He suggests that the majority of truth in scripture is hidden in allegorical form. He does not suggest abandoning the literal interpretation except where it contradicts logic or reasoning. Here is a quote that supports that that comes before his attempt to unravel the Gen creation story:
"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation." (ibid, 2:9).
Modern Accounts:
Many large Christian denomination have supported an allegorical or literal with allegorical elements in recent years. Many non-Christians claim that this is an example of slippery Christians changing there long held literal views to fit science. I hope I have shown so far that at least a significant portion of Christianity has supported an allegorical or partially allegorical interpretation of the gen creation account for some time. I would rather suggest that modern YEC is actually a reaction to, not so much Darwin but certain perceived links between Darwin and socialism and later communism.I dont have time to deal with this here but a brief google of the history of the early 1900s book the fundamentals and the history of fundamentalism is worth an exploration for those interested.
SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US.
What I have tried to show is that accounts of Genesis relating to a literal, allegorical or combination of the two has existed for some time. So how do we know which one and what does this have to do with the contradictions in the OP. Well modern argument has come down to a debate on 1. the original authors intent and 2. the initial interpretation of the original readers. The theory goes that the initial intention and interpretation must hold dominance over how the texts are interpreted today. this is not an easy feat as we have little evidence and in response to some atheists on the Dawkins forum the authors did not leave cliff notes lying around saying this is what I meant.
I would suggest that many scholars (including my Father)would still hold that the early interpretations are literal. The suggestion is that some elements certainly are allegorical but that were allegory is not obvious then the literal account is the correct one and the contradictions can be done away with when read in context. However some strong Christian and very well educated scholars do challenge that view. This is what they suggest.
1. Gen 1 and Gen 2 are not by the same author and are aimed at reflecting different things. If we accept the contradictions as inherent in two different accounts that are not meant to be taken literally all is well.
EDIT: I forgot to point out that the structure and style of Gen 1:1 to 2:3 is extremely unique and can be found nowhere else. Many claim that this style IS poetic, indicating a clear allegorical trend. I think it would be more prudent to say we are not sure what style it is because it is so unique but that it seems to have more features in common with a poetic rather than historical account.
2. The argument goes that the Gen accounts were reinterpretations of Babylonian and Egyptian creation myths that were, if you know this account, cleverly retold to assert the dominance of monotheism over polytheism and the Jewish God over other gods.
3. This can be seen by comparing the Babylonian and Egyptian accounts, both which predate Genesis, with the Gen account. I can give an account of these if anyone is interested. I will give a quick one though. The whole light before sun business is very very clever if taken from an allegorical perspective. Where have the Jews just come from? Egypt. Who is the main god there who is the creator? Ra the sun god. What is the author from an allegorical perspective trying to say. Well God and Light came before sun therefore the God is greater than Ra. One must really pay close attention to what Genesis is trying to establish and that is the central them that monotheism is better than polytheism and that polytheism is wrong, dangerous and that you cannot incorporate God into existing polytheistic structures.
4. If this is true the contradictions are of not worrying as Gen was never meant to be a blow by blow account.
Anywho, I hope you don't all flame me just wanted to but across an opposing view that is at least a significant section of the worlds Christian population holds to. Even if they may not know entirely why. I should note that I am not out to really have an argument about this and if people want to take this as crap then I have no problem with that. I will however, happily answer answer questions and quires and most likely state "I dont know" over and over again.
