When interpreting the Bible there are several approaches one can take and it is not obvious which one to use. In fact, this is why there are different interpretations of texts by Christians. Depending on the assumptions you have going in you will come out with a different result because you are trying to find a different answer. Most of the time as an interpreter you do your best to put all of your own assumptions aside and let the text speak for itself. However, knowing the context of the writing is required to understand a text as well. It can be a tricky balance. An example is the book of Revelation. Should we take everything literally as dragons and rivers of blood, four horsemen, a woman swallowing the moon, and two beasts with crazy heads and horns, etc? I think not! I see this and know that it is apocalyptic imagery that it is symbolic and trying to communicate a message through a particular medium.
When we come to the early texts of Genesis I feel much the same way, and as with Revelation, I feel I still have much to learn and understand. However, There is a choice we need make that affects our interpretation. Does Genesis teach us science? I hold loosely to a sort of literary framework hypothesis approach to interpreting Genesis 1. I do not think Genesis is teaching us that the earth is young, but I also do not think that Genesis is teaching us that the earth is old! I do not hold to a strict harmonizing of the Genesis account and modern science. There are points where one has to ask questions about these issues theologically, but interpretively I see no assertions in the text itself one way or the other that require a particular position on the age of the earth or universe.
Those who hold that Genesis teaches the age of the earth fall into two categories; Young Earth or Old Earth. Both of these are concordist in their approach. Much of the debate surrounds Young Earth Creationists condemning the compromising old earth peeps and fighting the Naturalists/Atheists to no avail. I am a non-concordist, though I do think the earth and universe are old for scientific reasons. For an article outlining the strengths and weaknesses of both approaches, check out this article from BioLogos.org which includes the diagram shown below:
| Concordist Interpretations: | Non-concordist Interpretations: |
|---|---|
| Young Earth Interpretation Creation occurred about 6,000 years ago, during six 24-hour days, in the order described. A scientific study of the earth should confirm this. |
Proclamation Day Interpretation The days of Genesis 1 took place in God’s throne room, wherein God proclaimed each step of creation. The throne-room days are not related to days or time periods on earth. |
| Gap Interpretation Earth was created long ago (Gen 1:1), became “formless and empty” (Gen 1:2), and was restored about 6,000 years ago during six 24-hour days. |
Creation Poem Interpretation The number and ordering of the “days” of Genesis 1 are chosen for poetic and thematic reasons rather than historical reasons. |
| Day-Age Interpretation Creation occurred over billions of years. Each “day” of Genesis 1 corresponds to a long epoch. Events occurred in the order given in the text, but stretched out over a longer time period. |
Kingdom and Temple Interpretations As the great King, God gives humans dominion as in a “land grant” covenant. Alternatively, God inaugurates the cosmos as his temple. In both cases, the text is not focused on the physical universe. |
| Appearance of Age Interpretation Creation occurred about 6,000 years ago during six 24-hour days, but it was created to look like it had a long history of billions of years. |
Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology Interpretation Genesis 1 matches the physical picture of the world believed in Ancient Near East religions, but presents a dramatically different theological picture, proclaiming one God as creator of all rather than many gods. |
Here are some other links of interest:
Report by the Presbyterian Creation Study Committee
Catholic view
Greek Orthodox view
No comments:
Post a Comment