Six Days of Creation
How should Genesis 1 (the six days of creation) be interpreted?
8 Replies
Genesis 1 answers the question of where did the heavens, earth and life come from. The first three days of creation God deals with the formation of the world by defining the boundaries of the earth. The last three days he fills the world with heavanly bodies and animals to resolve the initial emptiness.
Like I said in the atheists perspective question, you can never take what the Bible says literally. Rather, try and understand the big picture and what is being said. For example, in Genesis 1 it states that plants were made one day before the sun... but without sunlight, plants cannot reproduce. Another example is when it states "the waters above in the heavans" we all kmow that there is no water in the sky. It is referring to the blue sky and rain. At one point it states that the earth is flat, however we know that the earth is not flat due to scientific research. Again, at the time, God's purpose was to meet his authors and readers at the cognitive level that they were at and he acknowledged where their present understanding of the universe was. But now that we have scientific proof to prove otherweise, we must not take things literally. This is another reason why Christians may start to reconsider the coexistance of evolution and creation. Evolution has been proved in many ways and creation is based on our faith. Therefore, it makes sense that God created the earth along with evolution!
You say that you can't ever take the Bible literally. Isn't that cop out? Isn't that a way to simply make the Bible say what you want it to say? For instance, Jesus says some difficult things (eg, love you enemies). Can I just say that I shouldn't take this literally?
Well I guess to say "everything" shouldn't be taken literally was a bit of an overstatement and I should have clarified that the guidance from our pastors is what helps us properly understand the Bible. If we as believers all choose to interpret the Bible in our own way then that would cause confusion and wouldn't work very well. But all of my understandings of the Bible and realizations that scriptures are to be read as a "whole" rather than picking apart every aspect, came from listening to my priest. Their clarification makes me have a better understanding of the message that God is trying to get across.
jubb wrote:
Well I guess to say "everything" shouldn't be taken literally was a bit of an overstatement and I should have clarified that the guidance from our pastors is what helps us properly understand the Bible. If we as believers all choose to interpret the Bible in our own way then that would cause confusion and wouldn't work very well. But all of my understandings of the Bible and realizations that scriptures are to be read as a "whole" rather than picking apart every aspect, came from listening to my priest. Their clarification makes me have a better understanding of the message that God is trying to get across.
I agree with what you are saying here Jennifer! it is important we are aware of how to properly approach the Bible and what it is saying to us. It is easy to get caught up in literal interpretations, but it is important that we seperate the faith content from the insignificant side information or ancient science. In other words, we should focus on the message of faith or God's words in the Bible and not the small details in Genesis 1 and 2 that cause so much confusion and result in contradictions.
chorley wrote:
I agree with what you are saying here Jennifer! it is important we are aware of how to properly approach the Bible and what it is saying to us. It is easy to get caught up in literal interpretations, but it is important that we seperate the faith content from the insignificant side information or ancient science. In other words, we should focus on the message of faith or God's words in the Bible and not the small details in Genesis 1 and 2 that cause so much confusion and result in contradictions.
~~~~~~~~
I think we're on the same page, but just for the sake of argument... =)
I don't think that the ancient science or the literal details are "insignificant" necessarily Kayla.
I think that it is important to understand them *without* taking them literally. If we understand that the ancient writers of Genesis had their own scientific perspective that the Holy Spirit worked through in order to effectively communicate God's message, then we can understand that the message is what's important. But also, what we can take from this understanding of how Scripture was written, is that different parts of the Bible were written differently.
Parts of the Old Testament had been passed down orally for generations before they were written down, and as was the tradition, details were exaggerated on top of the ancient scientific perspective. To the people of this era, the details were less important, and the essence of the message were more important.
However, to answer Matt's question above, the accounts of Jesus were written by his direct followers, and if not his direct followers, then his disciples' disciples. These were the teachings that got Jesus crucified, and the fact that the passing on of these teachings was entirely illegal for the first three centuries of Christianity shows that they did not fluxuate to any significant degree. Furthermore, the creation accounts deal with both science and faith. Science is constantly evolving, and it is certainly reasonable to believe that the science 2-3000 years ago was not as advanced as it is today. But the faith aspect of Scripture (in both the Old and New Testament) is timeless, and has proven to be timeless throughout the 2000 years of Christianity.
This is a tough question and one that I’m not sure a consensus will ever be reached by Christians. I think there will always be those that interpret every word of the Bible literally and those that read the whole Bible with their focus only being place on Faith. If this is true I think that a more useful question to ask is are we ok with it being interpreted different ways? Paul states that divisions should never appear in the church and that our focus should always be on Christ. I think this statement has value and although I may be literally interpreting it, it might be beneficial to consider when discussing this question. If the focus of our belief is the same thing does the controversial interpretation really matter? Is it worth isolating believers over?
I don't think it matters how your interpret Genesis 1. I say this because it is not the "facts" of what was created first second or third that are important. In this case it is who created it that is important. Some might put their faith in that specific interpretation while others might not. I don't think it makes any difference whether the stars came first or the plants. I believe taht the authors of the Bible were trying to get to the point that God was ultimately the Creator.
It's interesting that as a religious community, you say we should focus on Christ as the center to our study and not neccessarily what is written. One of the most interesting things about scripture is the fact that they can be interpreted individually. Scripture, read under different emotional influence, will bring the reader different meaning each time. Not that what they read will change, but their perspective as well as what they find most important will.
Jennifer
Feb 22, 2011 at 7:52 PM