My parents taught me that Genesis 1-3 were literal, and that therefore, evolution could not be true. The earth, too, was not nearly as old as the scientific community indicated. For twenty-seven years I embraced this interpretation and countered the evidence of the scientific community at large with evidence from the Answers In Genesis organization. I thought that other Christians who embraced either evolution or an ancient earth were making a compromise that scripture would not allow.
Now, though, I am not so sure. For the past six or so months I have been reading books written by Christians defending evolution and/or a 4.6 billion year old earth. Everything I have believed about creation is now in the process of being re-examined, and honestly, it has been a disturbing process. If I accept an ages-old earth and/or evolution, will I lose my Christianity? And if I lose my Christianity, what hope remains in life?
The process of re-examination started when I realized that my scientist father-in-law, who was absolutely convinced that evolution was true, would never accept a Christianity that prohibited a belief in evolution or in an age-old earth. I began reading books by Christian scientists who explained the evidence for a universe that is many billion years old and for evolution occurring across species. It was so convincing that I began considering alternate ways of looking at Genesis 1-3.
What I want to do in the next couple of posts is consider the text of Genesis and then consider what science has said about the creation of the universe.
Now I Know In Part 
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 18, 2008 at 5:04 pm
danaofthebells
I am not Christian, so I will not pretend to be. You may consider what I say next to be blasphemous. However, it is my opinion on it, and adopting it has saved quite a few Christians around me from pulling their hair out in frustration.
Why take it literal? Why not take the symbolism out of it, something oftentimes beautiful and frightening, and believe in a flawed text written by several inspired authors over a span of centuries? Perhaps the deity decided that evolution was too much for people to understand so soon without any proof. There were simply too many questions to answer. Perhaps a parable with a snake was much more efficient. Seven days made much more sense than several billion years. Could people a millennium or two ago actually perceive the concept of billion? For someone living within our time period, it is still difficult to comprehend. We see a number, a representation of that sort of scale. We cannot comprehend time in that fashion. Most of us can’t fathom the size of one million people standing in a single area.
Does that make sense?
September 18, 2008 at 6:57 pm
sofismando
“Why take it literal? Why not take the symbolism out of it […] and believe in a flawed text written by several inspired authors?”
It is an abrahamic tradition to understand their most sacred texts (Torah, Genesis, Koran) as “the word of God”, hence flawless. If you break that and accept that flawed humans wrote those texts (whether “inspired” or not), then you open the door for criticism over the content of those texts.
Also, symbolisms require interpretation from the reader. That brings some obvious problems: how to reconcile multiple interpretations from multiple readers? is this a metaphor or not? can i interpret “thou shall not lie” my own way?
And by letting the text be interpreted, the relationship between reader and God would change from humble submission to equality, from obedience to questioning.
“Perhaps the deity decided that evolution was too much for people to understand so soon without any proof.”
All abrahamic deities are omniscient. God would know when we would be ready to understand evolution, so it could easily append an addendum to the Holy Text…
September 18, 2008 at 7:34 pm
danaofthebells
I understand that that is the practice, but all traditions aren’t necessarily right or the best way to do a thing. There is purpose and safety, and even beauty within the ritual, but they are not always the best way to accomplish your goal. At the very least, the translation and rewriting of a particular text numerous times infers that flaws and errors have occurred. In that very translation fact, you have interpretation, the connotation of the word used. It is not the tradition of most current Christian religions to take the text in the context in which it was written. For that very reason, we’re interpreting it in the context of our own lives, or own times.
Everything contains symbolism. Genesis 2:17 states “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die .” But, Adam and Eve did not die in a physical and literal sense. Instead, they died in a spiritual, figurative sense. They were no longer, according to the text, granted with what they once had. His words are symbolic. The sacrifice of lambs is symbolic. The fact that Jesus is called the Lamb of God is symbolic. The entire thing is filled with so much symbolism you could literally write hundreds of books detailing the process.
There is interpretation about any word or concept. At some point, someone had to define the color green, what blood was, and what a lie was in the first place. And, by proxy, what the concept of truth was. A fact is simply something that we come to the same interpretation of over and over. From what I’ve seen, a constant within the Christian perspective is applying scripture to their lives. To do this, they must interpret the scripture (whether literally or figuratively), interpret their lives, and find a correlation (or discrepancy) between the two.
This also brings to question a few other things within the text. If god is omniscient, then he knows everything, as is the definition. If the divine being is truly capable of this, how can he be surprised at anything that happens, as is the case in quite a few passages. He seems to require validation from those involved, if I remember correctly.
September 18, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Thomas
Thanks for the comments, danaofthebells and sofismando. I appreciate your civility, especially since this issue can generate passionate and often un-Christian discussion.
I hesitate to express an absolute opinion on the subject myself since I haven’t finished looking into everything yet, but I will say that I am seeing more and more that there is definite symbolism in the texts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3, and I am definitely open to other Christians’ interpretations. Certainly, we have to use our brains when we read to determine what type of literature we have in front of us and what the context is. You are right on there, dana. There seems to be an impression that Christians do not know how to understand passages that were meant to be figurative, that they only read the Bible literally. That’s too bad, because my tradition (Presbyterianism) is pretty good about identifying genres, traditions of the times, historical settings, etc. Roman Catholics, too, have clearly stated that there is no problem with reading the creation account with symbolism.
I also get the impression from sofismando’s comment that Christians cannot tolerate criticism of the Bible. Again, it’s too bad that this impression is out there because it is not true to my tradition. There are so many books arguing from a historical, logical, etc. perspective that the Bible is true. If we are going to stake our lives on the claims of the Bible, then we sure better make sure that they are actually true.
I don’t mean to say that your impressions are false, just that they are incomplete. There are a lot of loud-mouths in Christianity who do a great job of giving Jesus a bad name.
September 18, 2008 at 8:45 pm
danaofthebells
I always try to be civil… it doesn’t get anyone anywhere to turn into a giant ball of rage over an intellectual (albeit very emotional) subject.
Again, blasphemous… but one of my favorite sayings ever. I can’t honestly remember where I got it from:
“Jesus is like Elvis. He’s got some really good stuff if you listen to it, but some of his fans are just f***ing nuts.”
September 18, 2008 at 8:51 pm
sofismando
“At the very least, the translation and rewriting of a particular text numerous times infers that flaws and errors have occurred.”
Surprisingly there are very few translation errors, in part because for the most times there were just copies. Torah never got translated, neither did the Koran, and current Bible translators can refer to greek versions all the way to the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
“It is not the tradition of most current Christian religions to take the text in the context in which it was written. ”
Most current christians aren’t literalists on Genesis either. We were talking about the Gen1-3 and the age-old earth followers: it’s a minority that clings to the six-day story. And in the context of Gen1-3, there is no “applying scripture to their lives”: it’s simply a story, straightforward.
It’s easy to mine whole blocks that obviously make no sense if taken literally, so literalists end up stuck in this quagmire. But that’s beside the point. The fact is, there *IS* a reason to be literalist: the word of God is not to be interpreted, questioned or argued upon.
If one believes it’s the word of God, and believes in an omnipotent God demanding submission and obedience, as any fundamentalist does, then being literalist is pretty much the logical next step.
Under those two premises, this isnt any more unreasonable than believing in miracles or resurrection.
September 18, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Zacharias
As a Christian I actually agree with (most of) what Dana said. The bible contains many different writing styles, and the use of symbolism being one. So many problems arise when tries to take a strictly literal interpretation (Jonah got swallowed by a what and lived?!), but you run into just as many problems with everyone is given free reign to interpret as they will. That’s the beauty of the Eastern Orthodox Church. We have an interpretation that has been passed down for two thousand years.
To the issue of evolution, the way I take it is like this. If you don’t take the seven days to be literal, then it is perfectly in tune with the theory of evolution. God first created the heavens and then earth. Then creatures in the sea and birds of the air. Then land creatures, and finally, humanity. Fits the sequence of events of evolution pretty closely!
September 19, 2008 at 4:33 pm
sofismando
“I also get the impression from sofismando’s comment that Christians cannot tolerate criticism of the Bible.”
No, what I said was that if you accept that flawed humans wrote those texts, then you open the door for criticism over the content of those texts. “Criticism” as a rational critical analysis and evaluation of something.
For example, if flawed humans wrote the Genesis, then why should I believe in the words of the Ten Commandments? More, why should I believe there were only ten? Then, why should I believe there were any commandments at all, or even that Moses existed? It’s a slippery slope.
September 19, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Thomas
Sorry to misinterpret.
September 19, 2008 at 8:31 pm
danaofthebells
What is wrong with a rational, critical analysis and evaluation of something? Why bother thinking at all if the nearest, dearest things to us (such as our spirituality) can not be evaluated in a rational and critical manner?
I am faced with circular reasoning whenever I get in such a conversation with those of an Abrahamic religion. “Why do you believe?” “Because the Bible says so.” “Why do you believe the Bible?” “Because it is the work of God.” “How do you know it is the work of God?” “Because the Bible says so.”
There are three major religions all vying for the same Holy City at various points in history. There are billions who have died at the hands of ‘God’s Will’… and all because faith is put in the literal translation of a text that is millenniums old. These same religions have killed each other and others for nearly as long because these texts have said that they deserve to die, that they are unworthy. That those who do not believe are evil.
And even from your clarification of what you said, I still believe that the interpretation of what you said, sofismando, is accurate. People require a reason for the concept of morality. Unfortunately, the easiest way to get children to understand it is to create a figure omnipotent that is in control of everything. People will take the faith they are indoctrinated with from a child and take it to heart, carrying with them always. Because of this, people who are taught the Christian concept of right and wrong have a habit of believing that murder, lying, and stealing are wrong. This is good. However, it is not necessary. There are always those who will reject any teaching. In a theological society, the rules must be dictated by god through man on paper. In a more inherently ‘moral’ society, it is possible to have them dictated by men on paper, though there will always be those who disagree with any philosophy and rule set.
Religion, itself, to me is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless.
September 20, 2008 at 7:45 am
sofismando
“What is wrong with a rational, critical analysis and evaluation of something? Why bother thinking at all if the nearest, dearest things to us (such as our spirituality) can not be evaluated in a rational and critical manner?”
*I* never said it was wrong. 🙂
But before any critical analysis of sacred texts one has to decide: are those texts the word of God (hence flawless) or of men (possibly flawed)? If it’s the word of God, no evaluation is needed; actually any critique would be blasphemous, and even the thought of criticizing would be sinful pride.
My point was to show *why* someone would take Genesis literally. There is a valid line of thought that leads you there, as long as you take some premises which are in fact pretty widespread. You may disagree with the reason, but there is one.
September 20, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Thomas
“But before any critical analysis of sacred texts one has to decide: are those texts the word of God (hence flawless) or of men (possibly flawed)?”
How can you decide without critical analysis?
September 21, 2008 at 12:45 am
sofismando
Thomas, it’s a matter of faith (or lack of). 🙂
September 21, 2008 at 3:47 am
Thomas
I hope the smiley face means you’re just joking, sofismando, because otherwise, your answer doesn’t make much sense to me. If the question is how we know that scripture is God’s word, then your answer should be founded on reasons. The answer cannot be some enigmatic concept mistakenly referred to by so many people today as “faith.” The Biblical concept of faith is belief without sight, but a belief that is founded on reason. For instance, I take what God says about my future on faith because I have found him to be reliable in my past. I take what a scientist says about my DNA on faith because I have found him reliable in other areas. I take what the Bible says on faith because I have many reasons for believing it to accurate, reasons like fulfilled prophecy, historical reliability, the uniqueness of Jesus, etc.
I am not sure if you accept scripture as divine or not, but if you do, what do you base that on?
September 22, 2008 at 4:38 pm
sofismando
“If the question is how we know that scripture is God’s word, then your answer should be founded on reasons. […] The Biblical concept of faith is belief without sight, but a belief that is founded on reason.”
I wasn’t joking. For those that believe the Genesis is “The Word of God”, the reason behind that is simply faith. They could give various arguments to base that belief (prophecies fulfilled, accuracy preserved over centuries, etc). It’s still a belief, so those arguments can’t even be considered “reasons”.
Even your “reasons” are not really reasonable but simply masked faith. “Historical reliability”, for example, doesn’t say much.
If I give you 100 historical sentences and 90 of them turn out to be accurate, what does it say about the other 10? Reasonable people will say “nothing”, but faithful people will say “well, it’s the Word”.
I don’t see scriptures as divine, but that’s beside the point. I only came in because somebody questioned the literalism. I think it’s counter-productive to expect logical, sensible reason in matters of faith, and that includes literal readings of Genesis. Believing the universe was created in six days is as unreasonable as believing in resurrection: reason alone will say both statements are blatantly false, and one will need faith to believe in either. So questioning one will necessarily question the other.
September 22, 2008 at 8:05 pm
danaofthebells
Everything is based around belief. However, I think we were arguing the merits of blind faith rather than faith given from observations. Faith is a good thing, and religion a necessary evil. However, when they both get in the way of logical and reasonable analysis it creates issues for a culture in a profound way. They end up stuck in the dark ages, refusing to believe in what is right in front of their faces.
Fulfilled prophecy. I’d like some examples of events that have occurred predicted in the Bible, that are not them fulfilled in the Bible. I want predictions that have happened in the last 300 years or so. Do you have any examples?
The uniqueness of Jesus is not necessarily something that is true. I challenge you to read about Horus.
To take anything as physically impossible as literal resurrection, it will require a significant amount of faith.
September 24, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Thomas
Sofismando, I have often heard secular people contrasting “reason” with “faith.” For example, someone might say that scientists use reason while Christians use faith, meaning they believe “just cuz.”
However, this is a misunderstanding of the Christian concept of faith. In scripture, faith is belief that exists without all the facts gathered, but there are enough facts there to warrant that belief. In Genesis, Abraham left his homeland to go where God would leave him. He had no idea where that would be, but he obeyed because he knew that God was good and and would not lead him astray.
If anyone is going to believe that the Bible with all its claims are true, then he or she should make sure that the belief is well-founded.
By the way, historical accuracy should not be dismissed so flippantly. I doubt anyone would dispute the fact that Julius Caesar was assassinated.
September 25, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Thomas
I’m sorry it has taken a while to reply to your comment, Dana; it has been a busy week.
“I’d like some examples of events that have occurred predicted in the Bible, that are not them fulfilled in the Bible. I want predictions that have happened in the last 300 years or so. Do you have any examples?”
When I reference fulfilled prophecy as a reason for believing the Bible, I mainly mean the many passages that speak of the coming of Christ. There are many others that refer to the coming of kings and kingdoms, such as Babylonia, Greece, and Rome. I understand your concern with the predictions coming true in the Bible, but keep in mind that the Bible is not a single book, as I’m sure you know. Many hundreds of years and many authors separate the books.
I don’t think the main thrust of the Bible is to predict the future, and I think it is especially unconcerned with predicting the events that occur two thousand years after its last books were written. But I would (cautiously) confirm that there are some modern fulfilled prophecies. “In you shall all the nations of the world be blessed,” God says to Abraham in Genesis. The world has been very blessed indeed by his descendants. We can’t say that about the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, etc. Also, the formation of the nation of Israel has been seen by many Christians as a major fulfillment of prophecy.
“The uniqueness of Jesus is not necessarily something that is true. I challenge you to read about Horus.”
I read about Horus but saw no resemblance to Jesus. Did you mean Osiris? I acknowledge that many myths have a resurrected and glorified god, but the accounts of Jesus are not mythological in form. They are told as historical. Luke’s account in particular goes through pains to show that it was carefully researched. Furthermore, I hardly think the Hebrews and early Christians, with their disdain for pagan mythologies, would want to shape a story after their mold.
I think Jesus is unique in many ways. His teachings and life were in incredible contrast to the culture and ideas of the time. He taught us to love our enemies, to do righteousness in secret, to serve others, and to not retaliate. He befriended women, touched the untouchables, and associated with outcasts. Jesus made outrageous claims. He said that he was the source of life and the way to the Father, that those who believed on him would be resurrected, that he had the power to forgive sins. You may find similarities out there in mythologies or some of the same teachings here and there, but Jesus still stands out as being one of a kind.
“To take anything as physically impossible as literal resurrection, it will require a significant amount of faith.”
True. You would need a lot of eyewitnesses to confirm it, and the Bible provides them.
If God is real, then the miraculous is possible.
October 9, 2008 at 3:28 pm
sofismando
“By the way, historical accuracy should not be dismissed so flippantly”
I didnt dismiss historical accuracy. I dismissed “historical reliability” as a “reason” to believe in the acuracy of a text.
Again, same example: suppose a text that has 100 historical statements, and 90 of them turned out true, what can you conclude of the remaining 10? Answer is, nothing.
This is more than just about the Bible. “The Da Vinci Code” has many factual, reliable, true historical statements, but reasonable people agree we should not use them as reason to believe in everything there.
October 13, 2008 at 3:41 pm
airtightnoodle
Your quest sounds much like my own a few years ago. Good luck, and God bless! I will keep checking your blog to “stay tuned”. 🙂
October 14, 2008 at 1:33 am
Thomas
Thanks, airtightnoodle, for the comments and the book recommendations. I have been wanting to pick up Finding Darwin’s God, but I suspect that he will be repeating what I’ve already read. What I’m really interested in is a book by a theistic evolutionist who writes about how to interpret Genesis 1-11. Any recs there?
October 14, 2008 at 2:10 am
Ken
Recommendations for reading theology that does not depend on a literal reading of Genesis and allows full belief in evolution:
Paul Tillich
Abraham Joshua Heschel
Recommendations for a history of interpretations of Genesis and and other books of the Bible:
James Kugel (How to Read the Bible)
In addition, I recommend a book about the origins of the Bible by Donald Harman Akenson. The title is Surpassing Wonder.
Although he does not directly address theistic evolution, Thomas Merton’s theology is an example of one that is compatible with evolution.
Although he had no faith in a conventional sense, Loren Eiseley was a scientist whose writings are worth reading for one interested in theistic evolution.
All of these authors will take you quite far from your theological origins.
October 15, 2008 at 2:40 am
Thomas
Thanks, Ken.
October 15, 2008 at 11:29 pm
airtightnoodle
Thomas,
One of the books I recommended discusses the interpretation of the Genesis creation story, though it doesn’t go into a lot of detail about all of the first 11 chapters. That book was “Beyond the Firmament” by Gordon J. Glover.
Another book that I just recently started reading along these lines is “The Meaning of Creation” by M. Conrad Hyers.
I would also appreciate any recs for books that discuss this topic.
October 17, 2008 at 4:48 pm
internetpastor
To all,
The Bible is a love letter from God to his kids. If you don’t “get it” then maybe you never “got it” and that’s what you “get” for reading other people’s mail.
Get it?
-IP
October 17, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Thomas
“Get it?”
Not really. Care to elucidate?