Thanks. It has been a good discussion. It's always good to dialogue, imho. If you're truly interested in it, you may want to pick up John Walton's book, "The Lost World of Genesis 1." It's a fairly inexpensive book ($13) and a decently easy read (about 190 pages). I find it fascinating. To me it makes so much more sense than the young earth creation view, the old earth creation view, or a chronological view of Genesis 1. It makes sense from the vantage point of the ancient worldview, and it takes away any war with science. I really like the approach he takes, and to me it makes excellent sense of the text. After all, I want to stay true to the text of the Bible, acknowledge the truth of science, and understand the Bible in its cultural context. This does all of them.

Thank you for this discussion. I don't think I have much more to add. I have to admit that the view still feels like apologism to me (trying to retroactively make modern science and the Bible fit together), but feelings are not arguments.

Thanks for the dialogue. Glad to continue it.

> the story interpreted so that each word refers to what it means in its most basic sense.

We are not after letting each word refer to what it means in its most basic sense. We are after what the author intended by it, which we can gain by linguistic and cultural studies. It's not legitimate to deal with the English text as if the most basic meaning of our English words communicates the full import or even the intended gist of the Hebrew term. For a full meaning of difficult, ancient texts we need to go back as far as we can to the original, both linguistically (comparative linguistics) and cultural studies (anthropology, sociology, mythology, theology, etc.).

> This is the fundamentalist/young earth creationist interpretation, and the one that is taught to children (source: my memory from primary school).

This is only the most basic sense because you were taught a Western Enlightenment approach to the text. As I have written, taking the text as functional seems even a more "literal" approach to it that the YEC Sunday School version.

> Then there are deeper readings, those that appreciate poetic and symbolic elements.

The deeper readings are not the poetic and symbolic ones. For instance, I have told you that the text is about functional creation, not material creation. Let me add to that, and it has nothing to do with poetry or symbolism.

In the ancient world, something was considered "created" (it came into existence) when it was separated out, given a function, and given a name. In the Ritual of Amun, the first god arises on his own from the primeval waters, separates himself from them, and then separates himself into millions to function as the gods.

Prior to creation, the Egyptian texts talk about the "non-existent." In their thinking their "nonexistent" realm continues to be present in the sea, in the dark night, and even in the desert—places not without physical (material) existence but without role or function. In the Egyptian pre-creation state of nonexistence there are two elements: primeval waters and total darkness.

Mesopotamian records show that when one named something (and the name designated the thing's function or role), then it was considered to exist. In the Babylonian Creation account, bringing the cosmos into existence begins "when on high no name was given in heaven, nor below was the netherworld called by name ... When no gods at all had been brought forth, none called by names, no destinies ordained, then were the gods formed." In the earlier Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld, the first couple of lines read: "After heaven had been moved away from earth, after earth had been separated from heaven, after the name of man had been fixed," then the heavens and the Earth were considered to exist.

We can see these same cultural ideas in Genesis, and they have nothing to do with poetry or symbolism. Something was considered to exist when it had been separated out, given a name, and ordained with a role and function. As you read Genesis 1, now, you can see it more in its cultural context. The Genesis account is more about who controlled functions (a very common ancient Near Eastern worldview) than about who gave something its physical form. In the ancient world something was created when it was given a function.

You'll notice that Genesis 1.2 present a world without separation and without function. Material is present, but it's disordered and nonorder, formless and void. The material that is there is without order and proper functionality.

> Your interpretation belongs to the former category. In fact, you admit so much:
[On the word "nudity":] Yes. It's figurative.

You know, because I admitted that one piece of the writing was figurative doesn't mean you can toss the whole narrative into that category. It's inaccurate. What I said was that the story is literally about functional creation, not material creation, literally (if we can use that word). It's not poetic, allegorical, or metaphorical. But of course, yes, there is one figure of speech in there (maybe even more, but that doesn't make the text metaphorical or poetic).

> Why would one put physical things as the object of a verb that could only refer to abstract things? Also, why would the early translators have used "to create" (the word used for material creation) instead of a more appropriate term?

"Create" was the appropriate term. It's just that the ancients thought differently about creation than we do. If you're a language nerd, let's go deeper.

בָּרָא (bara’) means "create" all right. It refers to some unique formative act, but does not rule out any process, immediate or developmental. An examination of the Old Testament:

Verses with bara’ in it:
Gn. 1.1, 21, 27, 27, 27
Gn. 2.3, 4
Gn. 5.1, 2 – people, male and female
Gn. 6.7
Dt. 4.32
Ps. 51.10 – create in me a clean heart
Ps. 89.12 – north and south
Ps. 102.18 – created a people
Ps. 104.30 –
Ps. 148.5 –
Isa. 4.5 – a canopy of smoke and fire
Isa. 40.26 –
Isa. 41.20 –
Isa. 42.5 –
Isa. 43.1, 7 –
Isa. 45.7, 8, 12, 18 –
Isa. 54.16 –
Isa. 57.19 – the fruit of lips that praise his name
Isa. 65.17, 18 – the idea of Jerusalem
Jer. 31.22 – created a new thing
Amos 4.13 –
Mal. 2.10 –

The objects "created" are unusual things, in the categories of abstractions rather than material products. It has nothing to do with manufacture (the way we modern Westerners think of "create"), and not with things. When we speak of creating a piece of art, we are not suggesting the manufacture of paints and canvas, but rather of what we DO with them. Even more abstractly, one can create a situation (e.g., havoc), or a condition (an atmosphere of hostility, for instance). The verb bara' is never joined with an accusative of material. This is all in perfect keeping with their cultural context and linguistic worldview. As we examine bara' we can see that the objects of the verb point consistently toward its connection to functional properties than to material existence.

> Why would one put physical things as the object of a verb that could only refer to abstract things?

Gn. 1.1: "The heavens and the earth" are often used in Scripture to speak of the totality of all things. An abstraction of completeness.

On Day 1, there is no word for "create" or "make." Only an abstract concept of "let there be..."

On Day 2 the word for "made" (v. 7) is from the Hebrew root 'asa, as term that means "do." It is used 1560 times in the OT to designate the accomplishment of a task, and 670 times of making either a material object (like an idol) or an abstraction (like an offering). Notice that most of what is happening on Day 2 is that God is creating a separation (abstract).

On Day 3 nothing is made. There is a separation and a naming.

On Day 4 we read "let there be" and then a function: to mark days and seasons. There is also separation. Verse 16 again uses the term 'asa. Job 9.9's use of the word is the arrangement of the stars into constellations (abstract) rather than manufacture. Isa. 41.17-20's use of the term is regarding function. So also Isa. 45.7.

And so it goes. I won't continue because I hope you get the thrust of the text.

> Also, why would the early translators have used "to create" (the word used for material creation) instead of a more appropriate term?

"Create" just may be the most appropriate term. Other alternatives may give the wrong impression. Translation work is not always smooth and easy.

It seems that I didn't make myself clear.

There is the literal story, the story interpreted so that each word refers to what it means in its most basic sense. This is the fundamentalist/young earth creationist interpretation, and the one that is taught to children (source: my memory from primary school).

Then there are deeper readings, those that appreciate poetic and symbolic elements. The real events the story describes differ from what happens in the "primary school interpretation".

Your interpretation belongs to the former category. In fact, you admit so much:

> [On the word "nudity":] Yes. It's figurative.

Now for arguing semantics:

The very definition of metaphor is "a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea being used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them" (from Merriam-Webster dictionary, with modifications for flow) Thus, any interpretation in which the true meaning of the story is different from the primary school interpretation (adjusted for mistakes in translation) has metaphorical elements, and if they are widespread enough, can be said to be "metaphorical" as a whole.

Your interpretation is one of the better ones in this thread, but your insistence that it is not metaphorical kills me (metaphorically).
Also, as a language nerd, this bugged me:

> the Hebrew word "bara" that we translate as "create" was not used by the Hebrews for material creation, but rather abstract things (purity, righteousness, people groups like the nations)

Why would one put physical things as the object of a verb that could only refer to abstract things? Also, why would the early translators have used "to create" (the word used for material creation) instead of a more appropriate term?

This is easily explainable if the word has a basal meaning of "to create (materially)", and the abstract meaning is an extension of it.

> If you start with the presupposition that something doesn't contradict science, you could make this kind of case for anything

But I didn't. For years I was a young earth creationist, believing in 6-day creation. On the basis of biblical analysis, I discovered that the YEC interpretation just didn't hold. I came across the writings of Dr. John Walton, and they made so much sense. I came to realize that the Scriptures didn't contradict science at all, and that the two lived in perfect harmony. It was quite a eureka moment for me.

> But regardless of how much time a day is, we still know that light comes from light sources and is required for plants to grow.

Of course it does. The ancients perceived the sun, moon, and stars as light-bearers, and they knew that the light they saw with their eyes was in distinction from those light-bearers they saw high in the firmament. Light was not considered something physical in the ancient world. Rather, it was a phenomenon. Here in Genesis it is clear that the author is talking about a period of light and a period of darkness. The light is called "day" (yom) not "light" ('or). They knew that light was required for plants to grow. An ancient agrarian society had that one down pat.

> Sort of like how dudes can't live inside of giant fish, there never was a worldwide flood, and this is so obviously fictional mythology we're talking about that it feels retarded even legitimizing it with a reply.

These are distractions from the conversation and don't apply to what we're talking about. Those are complete different discussions.

But the point is, I have shown you how Genesis 1-2 don't need to taken as fictional mythology unless you are close-minded to looking at things in a new light. Don't insist on a very small bandwidth as the only possible way to interpret Genesis 1-2.

Yours is the post-hoc explanation here, friend. If you start with the presupposition that something doesn't contradict science, you could make this kind of case for anything. I don't think you really get how utterly and absolutely unconvincing it is.

Days imply chronology and the passage of time. YEC's and old earthers alike agree on this, they just disagree on the specific amount of time implied by these "days". But regardless of how much time a day is, we still know that light comes from light sources and is required for plants to grow. Sort of like how dudes can't live inside of giant fish, there never was a worldwide flood, and this is so obviously fictional mythology we're talking about that it feels retarded even legitimizing it with a reply.

> But Genesis clearly says that they did

Only if you're reading it through 2018 Western eyes indoctrinated by Enlightenment philosophy and modern theology. Instead we need to read the text through ancient eyes. If Genesis 1 is a temple text, writing about how God ordered the universe to function as his temple, then it's not a chronological account of the order of material creation. The 7 days of Genesis, as I said, are not chronology but revelation: the greatness of God and his power and purposes in ordering creation.

You want to take the text literally, for what it clearly says. But are you sure you are looking at it literally? For instance, if we look at Day 1, the "creation" of light, we can at first clearly agree that the ancients knew nothing about what our physicists call "light." We do injustice to the text by trying to make it conform to our scientific world view.

But then let's look closer. Let's look at it LITERALLY, clearly. They called the light day (which is odd, because they had a word for "light"), and the darkness "night" (again, they had a word for darkness). This tells us, if we want to read the text literally, that they were speaking of a period of light, which is literally what "day" is, and a period of darkness, which is what "night" is. And then it tells us literally how the period of light (day) and the period of light (darkness) function: as evening and morning. It is telling us that light and darkness function in periods of time, ordered to alternate in sequence, giving us what we call TIME—a function of light and darkness.

When we get to Day 3, we learn how the earth functions, literally. God separates the water and land, and then we find out in v. 11 how the land functions: "Let it produce negation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seen in it." It produces plant life. That's its function. God ordered the world with all of the necessary ingredients for things to grow: water, soil, seed yielding plants with more seed. It's how the land functions.

Day 4 is as clear as can be: it's about function. "Let them serve as signs to make seasons and days and years." It's about how the heavenly bodies function. Literally.

> So what you're essentially saying is "Genesis doesn't contradict science, as long as we ignore the bits that plainly do".

So I'm saying something completely different from what you have claimed. Nothing in the text contradicts science. Days and night alternate to give us the function of time. The earth functions to give us vegetation. The sun, moon, and stars function to give us days, seasons, and years. That's good science.

But Genesis clearly says that they did (plants created before the sun). So what you're essentially saying is "Genesis doesn't contradict science, as long as we ignore the bits that plainly do". Which isn't impressive as you could say that about literally anything.

> Sorry, but these points conflict. The literal text of the story is about material creation

Thanks for the conversation. What you don't understand is that the Hebrew word "bara" that we translate as "create" was not used by the Hebrews for material creation, but rather abstract things (purity, righteousness, people groups like the nations). It is never talking about making a thing, but rather an abstraction. It never refers to materials because that's not what it's talking about. A similar kind of English parallel might be when we say something like, "I created a masterpiece," or "I created havoc." When we read "create," we think MATERIAL! But that's our mistake. Instead the word is used in the Bible to speak of something other than material things. Now, God certainly created the universe (Isa. 66.2; Jn. 1.3; Heb. 1.3; 11.2), but that's not what Genesis 1-2 are about. In Genesis 1-2, God is creating functionality.

> literal days

Again, look at it with different eyes. Genesis 1 is an ancient temple text. No temple made by human hands was suitable for the true God, so God is establishing a temple worthy to speak his glory, and it's the cosmos. He orders the cosmos to function as his temple. Every temple dedication ceremony in the ancient world was a 7-day ceremony, rehearsing the acts of their deity and his greatness. The 7 days of Genesis are not chronology but revelation: the greatness of God and his power and purposes in ordering creation. Of course they're literal days, but the text is not about a 6-day creation, but a 6-day rehearsal of the greatness of God. Then on the 7th day God comes to rest in his temple, which means he comes to live in it and engage his people. This was the understanding of all ancient temple texts, and Genesis should not be read with modern eyes. We have to see it through ancient eyes.

> Interpreting this as really referring to functions and roles is valid, but such an interpretation is metaphorical by definition.

Metaphor is the wrong word. It makes it seem symbolic or figurative, which it is not. God is literally ordering the universe to function as his temple. His real actions have historical points of intersection. It's not a metaphor at all. When I move my stuff into a new house, I order it to create a home for myself. Before it was empty and void, but I fill it and order and create a home. That's what's happening here. I make the house that was there functional for me.

> "Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

We need to stop treating the text like it was written in the Western world last year.

"Adam" is the Hebrew word for humankind, not an individual. Hebrew wasn't invented yet, so this is a category, not an individual's name. Of the 34 occurrences of "Adam" in Gn. 1-5, 22 have the definite article, which in Hebrew is never used of a personal name. so it is here. (Only 5 times is it used of an individual.) Therefore this is a reference to humanity, of which the individual in Gn. 1-3 is an archetype (not an allegory or metaphor).

In the ancient world dust is a symbol of mortality (Gn. 3.14; Ps. 103.14). Humankind was created with mortal bodies. Not only is it explicit in the text (Gn. 3.14), but it's logical in that a tree of life would otherwise be unnecessary. Adam is an archetype (not an allegory or a metaphor, please). In Adam we know that all homo sapiens were mortal.

I know it's traditional to think that God knelt down and formed Adam materially with his hands out of the ground, but that's just a nice poetic rendering. That makes us think more like Pinocchio than reality. If you wanna get literal, dust isn't moldable. The verb "yasar" (formed) doesn't need to make your mind think of sculpting. If that were the case, clay would be a better medium. Read Zech. 12.1, where the Lord forms the human spirit within a person. That's more the idea, and it sure isn't talking about m material creation. In the Egyptian reliefs Khnum, the craftsmen creator deity forms the pharaoh. He's not involved in material creation, but is designing the pharaoh for his role and function. We should understand this process as archetypal rather than referring to material origins.

> "So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man"

First of all, again in Gn. 2.21 we have "Adam" with the article, telling us it's talking about humanity, not an individual. In Hebrew, the "rib" (tsela) is not a piece of anatomy, but rather the side of a building or room. The word is not used anatomically anywhere else in the Old Testament, so not here either. It is first translated "rib" in the Septuagint, and we have all been suffering from that translation ever since. Instead, God is communicating to humanity about the nature and identity of the woman. She is of the same substance and essence as he is. She is his "counterpartner," neither his inferior nor his servant. The text is establishing the unity of humanity and the equality of men and women.

> Nudity...Metaphor.

Yes. It's figurative. Interestingly, the word for the shrewd cunning of the serpent (3.1) is 'arum; the word for nakedness here is 'arummim. The two verses are next to each other. So we're seeing a wordplay: the serpent is shrewd, and the humans are...unshrewd, therefore, innocent and pure.

Secondly, clothing has great symbolic meaning in the Bible: power, vulnerability, status, station, even sometimes morality and spirituality. Here the man and woman are complete naked, a clear biblical metaphor of their moral innocence.

When Gn. 2.25 says they were naked and felt no shame, we can understand it to mean their relationship with each other was unhindered by guilt, fear, mistrust, domination, or evil. They are portrayed as morally and spiritually "not guilty". So also, and primarily, their relationship with God. Nothing stood between them and God. Their nakedness is a picture of freedom, a state of innocence, and a symbol of uncorrupted relationship.

> "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Ha, you want to know if the serpent is presented as a spiritual being, why is he contrasted with wild animals? Good question. This tells us the serpent was not just a symbol. He's not a metaphor, but just as real as any other created thing.

> it is that you are already taking it metaphorically, not as actual, literal events.

Then you have missed what I'm saying. It's very real. "Literal" is not a helpful term. I don't take it metaphorically. I take it as an account of functional creation, not material creation. These were actual events in space/time history. They don't contradict with evolution. They don't contradict with each other. They're not metaphorical. The narrative of Genesis 2 portrays Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity, which is just the way Romans 12.5-20 portrays them: historical, but representing all humankind.

> The Genesis account is neither metaphorical nor allegorical, but actual.
[...]
His theory about Genesis 1 & 2 is that they are about how God ordered creation (functions and roles) rather than about material creation (how they came to be)

Sorry, but these points conflict. The literal text of the story is about material creation (" So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems [...]) occuring over literal days ("And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."). Interpreting this as really referring to functions and roles is valid, but such an interpretation is metaphorical by definition.

> But the process of how this all came about is never described [...]

"Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

"So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man"

There's your descriptions. Pretty explicit.

> Nudity is a misunderstanding of the Genesis story; their nakedness about their innocence and purity, freedom and beauty.

Metaphor.

> The serpent was most likely a spiritual being. The Hebrew word for serpent is nahash, which is indeed the common word for snake.

Metaphor. Or at least symbolism. Also notice this:

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made."

Sure, that is not "any of the other wild animals, but it does imply it.

My point here is not that the Garden of Eden story should be taken literally: it is that you are already taking it metaphorically, not as actual, literal events.