Literal and metaphorical Christian interpretations of Genesis

How can two Christians read the same chapter of Genesis and come away with such different ages for the earth? Genesis one counts six days of creation and a seventh day of rest. Scientists put the age of the universe at about thirteen point eight billion years. Some Christians read those six days as six ordinary days, and believe the earth is only thousands of years old. Many other Christians read the same words and see no clash with science at all. One guess people reach for is that one group takes the Bible seriously and the other does not. Both groups would turn that down, because both read Genesis as the word of God. The difference lies in how each group reads, and why.

Every reader has to decide what kind of writing they are reading. A literal reading takes words at face value, as plain fact. If a weather forecast says it will rain, it means water will fall from the sky. A metaphorical reading takes words as pointing to a truth beyond their surface. If someone says your gran has a heart of gold, nobody thinks her heart is metal, but the sentence still tells you something true: she is kind. Now a line from Psalm twenty-three: "The LORD is my shepherd." Would Christians read that line as plain fact or as a metaphor, and what does it mean? As a metaphor. Christians do not think God herds sheep, but they believe God guides and cares for people the way a shepherd does. Every Christian reads some parts of the Bible as metaphor and some parts as plain history. The question about Genesis one is which kind of writing it is. That gives two broad groups. Literalist Christians read the Genesis creation accounts as factual history. Non-literalist Christians read them as true in what they teach, told in a picture-like, poem-like form rather than as a science report. Two more labels turn up in textbooks. A fundamentalist is a Christian who holds that the Bible is without error in every detail, and who often reads it literally. A liberal Christian reads the Bible in the light of when it was written and of modern knowledge, and often reads parts of it as non-literal. One examiner's report notes terms like fundamentalist and liberal were used, but often not really understood. The habit that fixes it is to use a label only with what that group believes and why. Literalist and non-literalist are the clearest labels, so this video keeps to them.

Literalist Christians read Genesis one as factual history. The six days are six ordinary twenty-four hour days, and the order is the real order in which things were made. If the seven days themselves are hazy, the video on Christian beliefs about God as Creator in Genesis walks through them. Many literalists add up the ages of the people listed in Genesis and conclude that the earth is young, often around six thousand to ten thousand years old. They are often called young-earth creationists. Their main reason is their view of the Bible. They believe it is the inspired word of God, without error, so if Genesis gives six days, there were six days. They also point to Exodus twenty, verse eleven, which gives the reason for the Sabbath. It says: "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day." Why would a literalist see that verse as support for six real days? Because the Sabbath is a real day in a real week. If the command makes God's six days the pattern for a working week, literalists read them as ordinary days too. Readings like this are held by some evangelical and other Protestant Christians, who are often called creationists. Some Christians take a middle view. They read each day as a long age, so the order is real but the days are not twenty-four hours long. This is sometimes called the day-age view, or old-earth creationism. They point to Second Peter three, verse eight: "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."

Non-literalist Christians read Genesis one as true, but true in what it teaches. They believe it teaches who made the world and why it exists, rather than how it was made or how long it took. In their reading, Genesis teaches that God made everything, that creation is good, and that humans have a special place in it. That leaves no clash with science, and many non-literalists accept the Big Bang and evolution as the way God created. Many Anglicans and many other Protestants read it in a non-literal way. Catholic teaching says the story of the fall uses figurative language, but describes a real event at the start of human history. It also teaches that the Bible is inspired by God and gives the truth needed for salvation, rather than science. Non-literalists also look closely at how Genesis one is written. Each day ends with the same refrain: "And there was evening, and there was morning", followed by the day's number. The days also seem to come in matching pairs. Day one makes light, and day four fills it with the sun, the moon and the stars. Now look for the next pair, using the same pattern. What does day two make, and how does day five fill it? Day two makes the sky and the waters, and day five fills them with birds and sea creatures. Day three's dry land is then filled on day six with animals and humans. To non-literalists, a pattern like that is the mark of a carefully shaped poem or hymn, rather than a diary of events. They read the days as a framework that shows God ordering everything. Some Christians call Genesis a myth. In religious studies, myth has a special meaning: a story that carries truth about God and humans. It never means a story that is untrue. Now an explain task. Give two reasons why some Christians read the Genesis creation account as a metaphor, with a source of wisdom and authority. Which two reasons would you give, and which source from Genesis backs them? Reason one is the form of the account. Genesis one repeats the refrain "And there was evening, and there was morning", so many Christians see a carefully shaped poem, and read the days as a framework rather than twenty-four hour periods. Reason two is what they believe the Bible is for. It teaches why the world exists and who made it, so its truth, that God made everything good, stands whatever science finds. The source is Genesis one itself, with its refrain. A reason can be developed well or badly, and here are two attempts. The first: because it is in the Bible, and the Bible is the word of God. The second: because the repeated refrain shows a shaped poem, so the days work as a framework. Which development explains the reason, the first or the second? The second development does. The first could back up almost any belief, so it explains nothing about this one. Writing about a question on this reading, one examiner's report notes students frequently write: and this is in the Bible and the Bible is the word of God. It says this usually does not answer the question. Instead, develop a point with what the teaching means, and with what it leads Christians to believe or do.

Genesis raises four issues that divide Christian groups, and each one turns on how far Genesis is read as history. The four are the age of the earth, evolution, Adam and Eve, and the two accounts. Take Adam and Eve. Many literalists believe they were two historical people. Many non-literalists read them as a picture of every human, and point out that adam is the Hebrew word for human being. Or take the two accounts. Many literalists read Genesis two as a close-up of day six, so the two fit together. Many non-literalists read them as two different stories, each with its own emphasis. Christian groups also give different weight to sources when they read Genesis. Catholics read it together with the teaching of the Church. Many Protestants read the Bible alone, and they range from literalist to non-literalist. One rule keeps an answer on track here. Every view stays inside Christianity, because both literalists and non-literalists believe God is the Creator. One examiner's report says no marks were given for answers no Christian would accept, such as saying the accounts disprove the existence of God. The fix is to keep every view a Christian view: literalist or non-literalist, each with God as Creator. Now an outline task, and it asks for two views, each with its reason. How would you outline two different ways Christians understand the six days? Many literalist Christians understand them as six ordinary twenty-four hour days, because they believe every word of the Bible is factually true, so they hold that the earth is thousands of years old. Many non-literalist Christians understand the six days as a framework, showing that God made everything in an ordered way, so the days say nothing about how long creation took. Some Christians take a middle view, in which each day stands for a long age. A report on a question asking for different views says responses that focused on literal, metaphorical or mythological interpretations fared best. It adds that some were just an account of the narratives, achieving few if any marks. So a view with its reason is what to write, and a retelling of the story is never a view.

Last, a statement for evaluation: Christians can believe the creation accounts are true even if they do not read them literally. For the statement: Catholic teaching, many Anglicans and many other Christians say the accounts are true in what they teach. God made everything, creation is good, and humans have a special place, and a poem or a story can carry truth as well as a history can. One examiner's report notes many students weighed these readings well, seeing the Genesis creation story as literal, a metaphor, or "a story of its time which contains the truth." Against it: literalist Christians argue that if the days and the order are not factual, it becomes hard to say which parts are true and which are not. Exodus twenty, verse eleven, treats the six days as real, and they believe an error-free Bible must be true in its details too. Keep both sides inside Christianity here. The statement is about what Christians can believe, so an atheist's view does not answer it. Why might a literalist still disagree, when they too believe Genesis is true? Because for literalists the truth of Genesis cannot be separated from its details. If the days are not real days, they ask which other parts are not real either. A strong answer might conclude that the statement is right for most Christians, because they find the truth of Genesis in what it teaches about God and humans. It would add that literalists reply that this truth cannot be separated from the details.

A final round now, to check what has stuck.

First, a reason a student gave: the Bible is without error, so the six days were real days. Does that reason support a literal reading or a metaphorical one? The literal one. That is the literalist case, resting on scripture with no mistakes.

Now, what does myth mean in religious studies? A story that carries truth about God and humans, and never a story that is untrue.

A new view to place: a Christian says the six days work like the chapters of a book, showing order rather than time. Which reading of Genesis is that Christian taking? A non-literalist reading. The days are a framework that shows God ordering everything, with nothing to say about how long it took.

Now one last question. What do literalists and non-literalists agree on? That God is the Creator, and that what God made is good.

Back to the two Christians reading the same chapter. One reads six ordinary days and a young earth. The other reads a shaped poem that sits alongside thirteen point eight billion years. Both say the chapter is God's word, both say God made everything, and both say it was good.

Once both readings, each with its reason, are clear in your head, give this video a thumbs up. This one's done, and you will not need it again. If it is still blurry, leave it unmarked, save it, and give it a day before you look again.

Next in the chapter is Christian beliefs about the Word and the Spirit in creation. Hopefully that's next in your feed, but if not, search for ScholaFly R, S, oh one, oh five.

Every other video is on scholafly.com too, easy to search by video code or by keyword. Whatever you're revising, go there and have a look, or, watch the next video.