Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Rainfall]

It is possible that Genesis 1-3 is figurative.

Genesis 3:24: "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

There is something about this supposed literal story that doesn't add up.

To think any powerful heavenly being owning or holding human invented weapons, be it swords, bows, machine guns, tasers etc, feels fake and imaginary.

The author probably saw blacksmiths forging swords and unfinished flaming swords looked cool, so he get inspired by that and write that down.

It is unprofessional for any history account to contain fictional event or romanticized, so if the bible is perfect and professional, genesis 1-3 should be figurative.

[jimwalton]

I don't regard Genesis 1-3 as figurative. I subscribe to what is being taught and written about by Dr. John Walton ("The Lost World of Genesis 1"). 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). This perspective still believes God is the creator, but that Genesis 1 & 2 are not the narrative of material creation. Instead, Gn. 1-2 tell us why we are here, what our role and function are for being here. This theory allows science to be all that it can discover, wherever truth is found, but only the Bible can tell us the purpose behind it all, something science can't answer. I find his theory quite convincing. Here's a brief breakdown:

Day 1: the light and dark function to give us day and night, therefore TIME

Day 2: the firmament functions to give us WEATHER and CLIMATE

Day 3: The earth functions to bring forth vegetation: plant life and AGRICULTURE

Day 4: The heavenly bodies function to mark out the times and seasons

Day 5: The species function to fill the earth, creating the circles of life, the food chain, and FOOD.

Day 6: Humans function to subdue the earth and rule over it: God's representatives on the earth, scientific mandate, responsible care of the planet.

Day 7: God comes to "rest" in His Temple, meaning that He comes to live with the humans He has made and to engage them in daily life, to reveal Himself to them and be their God.

Therefore the Genesis account is actual, though there is a lot of figurative language in it. The Bible is very rich in literary terms and concepts.

With regard to Gn. 3.24, what Adam & Eve sacrificed most was the access to God's presence far more so than access to the Garden of Eden (though they lost that also). The real tragedy of their sin was separation from God.

The Bible portrays cherubim as real spiritual beings who serve at the throne of God. (They're not to be thought of as angels. They are very different in appearance and task.) They are guardians of God's presence who move at the direction of God's Spirit (Ezk. 1.12). Their appearance and presence are usually markers emphasizing the omnipotence and omniscience of God, just like the presence of security guards in our world emphasizes "Don't try anything." Here in Gn. 3.24 the cherubim function much like the later Levites who guard the sacredness of the tabernacle (Num. 1.51-53).

The flaming sword of the text represents the justice and holiness of God at work in His judgments (Jer. 47.6; Ezk. 21, and others).

So is the text figurative? The cherubim are literal. The flaming sword is figurative. When God ushered Adam and Eve out of the Garden, cherubim were stationed around to certify they didn't come back in. It's not unreasonable to think that some actual fire was also present, as God often manifests himself as fire or lightning. The image of the flaming sword is most likely a way of expressing that the humans were cast out of the garden by God as an act of judgment, and it was necessary to preserve the holiness of the place. But since there was literal fire/lightning at Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19.18), there may have been here as well, and the fire would represent God's justice and holiness.

Notice that the text doesn't say the cherubim were holding the flaming swords, as you assume.

[Nightmare]

So is Yahweh the creator in this model?

[jimwalton]

Absolutely. The Bible is clear that God is the creator of the material universe (John 1.3; Heb. 1.2 and others), but according to this model, that's not what Genesis 1 is about. Genesis 1 is about God ordering the universe to function as his temple. What the Bible DOESN'T tell us, according to this model, is what processes God used to create the material universe, or how long it took.

[Nightmare]

Given the size of the universe, this doesn't seem to make that much sense. Like much of the rest of the Bible, it's awfully self centered about humanity and our singular planet.

[jimwalton]

I guess that depends on reality. Are we the only life in the universe? No one quite knows. There are plenty of theories, and some people are even hopeful that we're not, but there's no evidence to the contrary. If we are the only life in the universe, there's nothing self-centered about humanity and our singular planet. For now, that's all we have to go by. If we are the only life in the universe, despite its size, then it could make a whole lot of sense.

[Nightmare]

Still doesn't explain why the universe needed to be so vast. What makes this creation story any better than all the others? They all seem based on a desire to explain our existence in a time when humans had far less knowledge of the universe than we do now. Sure appears like bronze age men wrote this and not a supreme being who created the cosmos.

[jimwalton]

The universe is vast to declare the glory of God. When we look up at the night sky, we are awestruck with its vastness and beauty. So should we be when we ponder God. The Hubble telescope is showing us wonders we could only dream about before. The universe is a spectacular thing to see and contemplate.

Psalm 19.1-2: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.”

No temple that a human built would be adequate to show what a majestic and awesome God He is (Acts 17.24). So God built one himself that was more suited to showing what kind of God He is—that's the universe, and that's what Genesis 1 is about: God ordering the temple he had made to function as a suitable place for him to show his glory and interact with people.

> What makes this creation story any better than all the others?

The other creation stories are about the gods fighting with each other and having sex with each other, and the worlds were created out of the blood and the births. Tiamat is the ocean goddess in the Enuma Elish story. She is killed by Marduk and half her corpse forms heaven and the other half Earth. Ea then kills Kingu and creates human beings from the blood. Then Marduk assigns functions and roles to each god, who are now happy because human beings can serve them like slaves.

In the Sumerian Atrahasis epic, the leading gods kill the rebel gods. When Geshtu-e, one of the rebels, is killed, the birth goddess mixes his blood with clay, forming 14 small figurines, which are baked in a kiln for 10 months, after which 7 men and seven women are "born."

In Egypt, Atum, the creator god, brought She and Tefnut into being by spitting out one and vomiting out the other. In another Egyptian myth, Khnum created the world from an egg made out of clay.

One can easily see that no creation story in the ancient world is in any way comparable to that found in the Bible. I would say that's what makes this creation story better than the others. God orders the world with this sovereign power and the spoken word, not by war and sex. God is not dependent on or threatened by any other force; He is supreme, sovereign, and noncontingent. Genesis portrays a divine unity of purpose rather than the feuding deities of pagan myths. It portrays a good God making a good creation as opposed to selfish, murderous deities serving their own ends. It portrays humans as noble and in God's image, given the role to function as God's priest and priestess, not as his slaves.

> They all seem based on a desire to explain our existence in a time when humans had far less knowledge of the universe than we do now.

It's unarguable that they knew less about the universe than we do now, but that doesn't mean that God couldn't and didn't reveal Himself to them so that they understood our role and function in the universe, as well as God's role and function. These are theological conclusions, not scientific ones.

> Sure appears like bronze age men wrote this and not a supreme being who created the cosmos.

I really don't know what it appears that way to you. I've given you a brief explanation of Genesis 1 as an account of function creation, not material creation, and I at least gave you enough evidence of it to chew on. It portrays humanity with dignity and purpose. It depicts the God who made the universe as powerful, wonderful, beautiful, purposeful, and wise. Taking all that into account, you seem to arrive at the conclusion that these writers were primitive, barbaric, and clueless. It seems odd to me because the conclusion doesn't flow from the premises.

Genesis 1 is a spectacular piece of writing with almost unparalleled artistry, even just looking at its literary qualities. Gn. 1.1 has 7 words, with exactly 28 (7x4) letters. There are 3 nouns. The Hebrews assign numbers to letters. If you give these letters their numerical equivalent, the sum is 777. The first 3 words have 14 letters (2x7). The other four have 14 letters. The Hebrew words for heaven and each each have 7 letters. In this verse alone there are 30 different features of 7. There are patterns through the chapter of 7 days. Gn. 1.2 has 14 words. The word "God" appears 35 times (7x5). "Earth" occurs 21 times (7x3). "Heaven/firmament" 21 times. "And it was so" 7 times. "And God saw that it was good" 7 times. The first three days are days of separation, the second 3 are days of filling. There is Hebrew parallelism. Verse 1 and Gn. 2.4a form an inclusio. Within the 6 days 10 stages may be seen (days 3 and 5 each have two stages and day 6 has three). There are chiasms in the text. Without going further (I hope I've given enough to make the point clear): This is a brilliant piece of literature, virtually (if not completely) unparalleled in history, and should not be sloughed off as the inferior work of Bronze Age dodos.

[Ruin Me]

Except light is produced by heavenly bodies and night and day are produced by movements of the same. The sequence makes no sense.
Moreover plant life is totally dependent on the Sun and cannot exist without it, again the sequence makes no sense.

[jimwalton]

I'm a little confused as to why the sequence of day and night functioning as time makes no sense. Maybe you could explain that to me.

It's obvious that in Genesis 1-3.5, the author is talking about periods of light and periods of darkness.

In the ancient world, light was not considered something physical. They didn't know the science that we know. They didn't believe that all light came from the sun. They had no knowledge that the moon was simply reflecting the sun's light. More importantly, there is no hint that for them "daylight" was caused by sunlight. For them, light was a phenomenon. The sun, moon, and stars were all seen as bearers of light, but daylight was present even when the sun was behind a cloud or even eclipsed. Light made its appearance before the sun rose, and remained after the sun set.

Here in Genesis, light is identified with the alternating periods of day and night. Since light is called "day" and darkness is called "night," the text indicates that the functional focus is time.

This was their mindset in the ancient world. In Egypt, the sun god Re is considered to be the creator of time as he rises every morning, relating the day-night cycle and light to time, just as Genesis does. And in a section of the Babylonian Creation Epic, Marduk is apparently creating time as the text’s references to the day and the year are followed by a reference to the watches of the night.

So, what doesn't make sense again?

> Moreover plant life is totally dependent on the Sun and cannot exist without it, again the sequence makes no sense.

What sequence? You'll need to explain. If Genesis 1 is about functional creation, not about material creation, then it's not a chronological account. Rather it's listing components of creation and explaining to us how God ordered them to function. It's not about chronological days of creation (six days in sequence).

What the days are about is that Genesis 1 is a temple text, and this is a temple dedication ceremony, so to speak. All temple dedications in the ancient world were 7 days long. For 6 days they rehearsed the deeds of the deity, showing how worthy he was of worship, and on the 7th day the deity would come to "rest" in the temple, meaning he would come to live there, and engage with the people in their lives and be their god. So that's what happening here. Are they 6 literal days? Yes, but of recognition, not of sequential creation.

What do you mean "the sequence makes no sense"?