Literally?

It is generally assumed by mainstream/traditional Christianity that the book of Genesis is a literal account of the history of the universe in general and the earth specifically. Many will argue that since Genesis is the Word of God, it must be true.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Genesis does hold such a status. An obvious question is: Does Genesis have to be literal in order to be true? The answer would by yes only if Genesis were meant to be taken literally. However, if Genesis were written as an allegory and intended to be an allegory, then it would be true as an allegory. The question, then, becomes one of purpose and intent.

Now, since we are assuming that Genesis is the Word of God, let us examine the plausibility that it was meant to be a literal historical account. We shall begin our examination with the seven day creation account in Genesis 1:1-2:3. I will note up front that I do not contest verse 1:1, so let us skip to the actual account.

Following is a basic outline of the order of events taken prima facie and interpreted literally:

"Day" 1: Earth, light, Night & Day

"Day"2: Firmament (Heaven), divided waters above and below firmament

"Day"3: Gathered waters, dry land, vegetation

"Day"4: Stars, Sun and Moon

"Day"5: Birds and sea life

"Day"6: Land animals, insects and humans

"Day"7: God rests

There are several problems with attempting to view this account literally. The Hebrew word for 'day' is 'yom' and need not mean 24 hours, but may be translated as an indefinite period of time. Some have argued that 'yom' along with a numerical index always indicates a 24 hour period, but if this is based on example, then this commits the fallacy of begging the question. Evidence and context should be the primary motivator for how to interpret this particular instance.

Evidence 1:

The creation account of Genesis begins by indicating that the earth existed prior to light. This poses a serious problem for several reasons. First, light is an integral part of the workings of our universe. Special Relativity tells us that light is a constant and that time is malleable. Thus, light is plays an essential role in the time aspect of our universe as well as the causal structure of our universe. Second, since matter and energy are related via Einstein's E = mc^2, it would not make sense for the earth (which is matter) to exist without light. Not only this, but the earth would have to have at least some energy, which would require that light already exist. Finally, it is not at all clear what it could mean for light to exist apart from sources of light (e.g. stars). One might conjecture that this refers only to the existence of electromagnetic energy or perhaps virtual photons, but this seems unlikely as God then uses this light to distinguish between "Night" and "Day".

Evidence 2:

On "day" 1, we are told that God distinguishes night from day. But night and day are phenomenologically defined in terms of the earth's rotation in relation to the Sun. But since the sun doesn't exist for another three "days", one is hard pressed to maintain a literal understanding. Furthermore, a day itself is defined as one complete rotation of the earth, again, in reference to the Sun. One might surmise that God is merely omnisciently keeping track of earth rotations, but this seems problematic in light of the use of the phrase, "...evening and morning". It should also be noted that evening to morning does not span a 24 hour time period.

Evidence 3:

Genesis 1:2 & 1:6-9 indicate that liquid water abounded on the earth. This would be physically impossible, however, as our planet would have been a giant ball of ice in the absence of the Sun. One could speculate that God supplied the energy to liquify the waters, but this seems an unnecessary ad hoc argument as it simply would have been more reasonable to create the Sun first, especially given the physics of our universe and God's ultimate end design.

Evidence 4:

On "day" 2, God creates the firmament or heaven. Now, 'firmament' is the translation of the Hebrew word 'Raqiya', which means:

1. extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
   1. expanse (flat as base, support)
   2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
      1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above (http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07549&version=kjv)

The picture we get is that the earth is a flat surface (a common belief in that time) with a solid hemispherical "shell" or surface above. This "shell" not only has water "below" it, on the earth, but also seems to support a body of water "above" as well. On "day" 4, we are further told that God made the Sun, moon and stars and subsequently placed them within this firmament (Genesis 1:14-15; 1:17). In effect, the view seems to be that Sun, moon and stars all exist at approximately equal distances from the earth in a celestial shell that divides two masses of water. Modern cosmology, however, shows quite clearly that this is not literally the case.

Evidence 5:

On "day" 3 we have the waters "gathering" to one place. Again, this seems awkward given that the waters would be ice, which doesn't "gather". Furthermore, there is a significant problem with the appearance of vegetation prior to the Sun. Biochemically, we know that plants depend on the Sun by means of photosynthesis. But even if one postulates that this vegetation could survive 24 hours without light, there is still the problem of the planet's hostile ice environment, which is rather inimical to vegetational flourishing.

Evidence 6:

Finally, on "day" 4 we have the creation of the Sun, moon and stars. As a quick note, the Sun and moon have important tidal effects on the earth. It is not clear, then, if the environment on earth would have been suitable for life in their absence.
Nevertheless, if a literal 24 hours is intended, then sea, land and air creatures, along with humans, would have had to survive bitter, death dealing cold as 24 to 48 hours is not nearly enough time for the sun to defrost the planet.

Evidence 7:

Genesis 1:29-31 further indicates that all animals were herbivores. If so, then one must explain the large number of carnivorous animals in existence today and would have to explain the radical changes to their physical makeup (e.g. teeth, digestive system, etc.). Furthermore, if all animals, including humans, ate nothing but plant life, then the earth would quickly exceed carrying capacity as there would be no control of populations. This would lead to the destruction of plant life, which in turn would spell disaster for all animals and people.

Evidence 8:

The 7th day is quite curious. God is said to rest on this "day", but as God, "He" needs no rest. Because of this, one is forced to understand this as God setting an example, which is already a step toward following evidence away from a literal understanding. Furthermore, "day" 7 is curiously missing the "evening/morning" phrase. While this may be nothing more than an oddity, taken with the rest of the above evidence, it seems that a literal day is not intended.

Given the above evidences as a whole, it seems abundantly clear that Genesis' opening creation account should not be taken literally. But if not literal, then what are the alternatives and what implications does this have for the doctrine of inspiration and hence inerrancy? These things will be the subject of the next blog.