The Metaphorical Language Of Creation

Young Earth Creationism Is Also Fallibly Human

Young earth creationists advocate a religious creed that has been devised by fallible human beings based on a particular interpretive approach to the Bible that they have fallibly chosen to use, and which yet they take great pains to rhetorically equate their fallible human creed with the testimony of God Himself because they refuse to recognize the fallible nature of their own human perspective. It is because of this adamant refusal to consider that their literalistic approach is itself based on fallible human thinking that their rhetoric is replete with references based on the idea that not accepting their creed is the same thing as not accepting God's Word. I see this particular fallacy expressed frequently, even by "non-exclusivist" YECs.

So what we have is some human beings promoting their fallible, humanly-inspired, literalistic interpretation of biblical texts while directly ignoring the inherently idiomatic and metaphorical nature of the language that is used. Based on one particular human-devised hermeneutic, these humans have formulated a religious creed, and yet they adamantly refuse to even consider the possibility that this literalistic hermeneutical approach can be fallible. They refuse to acknowledge any element of fallible human reasoning in their approach, implicitly placing their approach on a pedestal of divine wisdom. Their discussion is almost always couched in terminology that is based on assuming this literalistic interpretive approach that is the very thing being questioned, and they reject all evidence to the contrary by assuming the very interpretation that according to objective examination contradicts their own doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In other words, they assume the issue for which we are looking for independent verification (or falsification), and based on their assumption they arbitrarily reject the very information that demonstrates why their literalistic approach is wrong.

With Metaphor, Context Determines Meaning

The Genesis creation account is clearly metaphorical, containing many references to metaphorical language and symbols common to the culture of the ancient Israelites (you know, the original audience), with some parts of the metaphorical language being used in other places in the Bible as well. Young earth creationists completely ignore these other biblical passages that discuss creation using similar language in an obviously metaphorical manner, because they have arbitrarily chosen to assume that the Genesis creation account does not use metaphor.

Realizing the metaphorical nature of the Genesis creation account renders many young earth arguments completely irrelevant. For example, the whole "debate" about whether "yom," the Hebrew word for "day," in Genesis is a literal 24-hour day or a symbol for a great age is really irrelevant to the context of the creation story, because an historical, technical chronology is not the purpose and intent of the creation account. The "days" of the "creation week" are simply a metaphorical structure (a very purposeful one) upon which the account is hung. Thus, to argue over whether or not "yom" means only a literal 24-hour day holds little real meaning for properly interpreting the creation account since the account itself is metaphorical and does not have the purpose or intent of teaching historical and scientific details.

Does the Hebrew word for "wings" in Ezekiel 17:7 really mean wings? Does the Hebrew word for "eagle" really mean an eagle? Yes. Of course. But so what? Does this prove that we must interpret these "eagle's wings" as referring to eagle's wings? It is ludicrous to even consider that such an interpretation could be credible. To interpret the phrase literalistically would be to totally misunderstand the text.

Do the words "gnat" and "camel" in the phrase "straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel" in Matthew 23:24 really mean "gnat" and "camel"? Does the word "mountain" in Matthew 17:20 really mean "mountain." Yes, they do. So what? The words are used metaphorically. To interpret them literalistically is to misinterpret the text and to make the Bible "teach" absurdity.

Yet with the Genesis creation account we see young earth creationists - and many old earth creationists, for that matter - arguing about the meaning of "day," as if the literal meaning of the word was somehow relevant to whether or not the creation story is a metaphorical account. To argue about the literal meaning of the word "yom" is to entirely miss the point. It is used in the context of metaphor. To analyze the literal meaning of individual words divorced from the metaphorical context of the account is to distort and misunderstand what is being taught. Thus, by imposing a literalistic, technically-oriented interpretation on the Genesis creation account that is foreign to its context, young earth creationists distort and misunderstand its meaning. Then by ignoring the fact that they have imposed their own fallible humanly-devised hermeneutic on the text, they formulate the young earth creationism creed.

A young earth creationist might pose the question "How, in an 'old universe' view, would plants have been created before the Sun, Moon, and stars?" But this question doesn't even make any sense unless you already assume a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation account. It is only from a literalistic interpretation that chronology has any specific meaning in the account. However, chronology is not its purpose. The "days" are simply part of a literary formula used to structure the account. Recall my point regarding "wings" and "eagle" in Ezekiel. Yes, we know the literal meaning of the words, but understanding the meaning of the words does not mean we understand the overall meaning of the text. Furthermore, to insist on a literalistic interpretation would be to genuinely misunderstand the text.

Symbolic and Theological Language

The creation story of Genesis is written in the language of the ancient Israelites, uses elements and symbols that they would typically understand (and that are very foreign to us today), and is concerned with providing an accurate portrayal of the nature of the relationship between God and nature, God and humans, between the Divine and the created. All about the Israelites were mythologies of entire families of gods and the corresponding religious worship of idols. The primeval gods were chaos, the waters, darkness, light, and so on. Other gods were the sun, the moon, the winds, and so on. In this milieu, the religion of the Israelites was rather unique. There was One God (monotheism), and nature was not divine but was created by and subject to the power of the One God.

By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
and all their host by the breath of his mouth.
He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle;
he put the deeps in storehouses.
Let all the earth fear the LORD,
let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!
For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood forth.
The LORD looks down from heaven,
he sees all the sons of men;
from where he sits enthroned
he looks forth on all the inhabitants of the earth,
    (Psalm 33:6-9,13-14)

How different is the creation account of Genesis from the mythologies of the surrounding cultures. Chaos is not a god! God simply takes the chaos and molds it as He wills. The sun, the moon, and the stars are not gods! God commands them into existence and appoints them to their place. They are created things just as are the fish, the trees, the grass, the birds, and human beings. Creation is not the result of warfare between a pantheon of gods! There is no violence. Tiamat (chaos) is not a god that fights the will of other gods! Nature succumbs to the power of God without question.

"The gods who did not make the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under the heavens." It is he who made the earth by his power, who established the world by his wisdom, and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. When he utters his voice there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. He makes lightnings for the rain, and he brings forth the wind from his storehouses.
    (Jeremiah 10:11-13)

To whom then will you liken God,
    or what likeness compare with him?
The idol! a workman casts it,
    and a goldsmith overlays it with gold,
    and casts for it silver chains.
He who is impoverished chooses for an offering
    wood that will not rot;
he seeks out a skilful craftsman
    to set up an image that will not move.

Have you not known? Have you not heard?
    Has it not been told you from the beginning?
    Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
    and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
    and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;
who brings princes to nought,
    and makes the rulers of the earth as nothing.

Scarcely are they planted, scarcely sown,
    scarcely has their stem taken root in the earth,
when he blows upon them, and they wither,
    and the tempest carries them off like stubble.

To whom then will you compare me,
    that I should be like him? says the Holy One.
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
    who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
    calling them all by name;
by the greatness of his might,
    and because he is strong in power
    not one is missing.

Why do you say, O Jacob,
    and speak, O Israel,
"My way is hid from the LORD,
    and my right is disregarded by my God"?
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The LORD is the everlasting God,
    the Creator of the ends of the earth.
        (Isaiah 40:18-28a)

These are the kinds of lessons that Genesis was teaching and is teaching, and the young earth creationists in their fallible human thinking have imposed a fallible interpretation on the text and then tried to judge everyone else by their fallible humanly-devised creed. The Bible warns against adding to the Word of God. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for using their rule books by which to judge who was and was not worthy.

Truth cannot contradict truth. Nature itself shows us its age, in every nook and cranny where people care to take the time and effort to dig into the relevant details to examine it thoroughly. Many "young earthers" try to just "pooh-pooh" even considering the relevant detailed information from astronomy and geology, running to hide behind their personal belief in the fallible humanly-devised creed. To them I just have to say: Study your Bible better, especially your Old Testament, because you've obviously missed the bucketfuls of metaphorical language that is used. Being blinded by your own personal cultural predispositions, the nature of the biblical language has never made it through your mental filters.

The Real World, and The Implications

Truth-seekers have nothing to fear from the truth. SN1987A alone proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that the universe has been around for at least about 168,000 years. And SN1987A simply confirmed the distance estimations that astronomers had already made of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) galaxy based on magnitude measurements of, among other things, Cepheid variable stars. And the LMC galaxy is the second closest galaxy to the earth (the Sagittarius galaxy is the closest) - in a universe consisting of literally millions of galaxies! So the universe is far older than just 168,000 years!

Trying to use the Bible to justify fallible religious creeds that imply false things about the real world only discredits the Bible and Christianity.

Then, for a person to take it even one further step and judge those who do not agree with the young earth doctrine, and who reject this fallible "young earth" interpretation, as rejecting the testimony of God Himself is to become a hypocrite, for refusing to acknowledge his own fallibility, and a Pharisee, for trying to place his fallible human ideas on a divine pedestal and imposing them on others even to the extent of trying to exclude them by claiming that they can't be good Christians unless they accept this young earth doctrine.

There are a whole lot of YECs in many churches who find rejection of the young earth creed to be intolerable. Much of the "exclusivist" rhetoric is still used by the more tolerant YECs, phrases such as "if you reject what the Genesis creation account says, then you are rejecting the testimony of God." Well, no, that's not true. That is a mischaracterization. Here is a correct portrayal: "If you reject a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation account, then you are rejecting a literalistic interpretation of the Genesis creation account." The "rejecting the testimony of God" is nothing more than prejudicial rhetoric. It is a fact that there are a great many Christians who accept the Bible - yes, the entire thing - as the testimony of God, who also accept and acknowledge the facts that the universe and the earth are ancient having been compelled by what they have learned of the relevant astronomical and geological information. Obviously, the "old earthers" do not accept the literalistic YEC interpretation, but that is certainly not the same thing as rejecting the testimony of God, and it is only YEC arrogance that continues to portray it this way in this day and age.

Augustine dug into the details of the Genesis creation account on no less than three separate occasions over a period of several years, starting with a literalistic approach and ending up "going allegorical" due to the quandaries that the literalistic approach raises. Today, there are people like Hugh Ross (astrophysics), Hill Roberts (quantum physics), Davis Young (geology), Howard Van Till (astrophysics), just as a few examples, who are quite dedicated Christians (and who, by the way, are also strong advocates of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy) and who have realized that the literalistic interpretive approach cannot be correct. There are others, such as John Willis (Old Testament professor at Abilene Christian University), who have realized, at least, that the literalistic interpretive approach has some serious problems and that one should not be dogmatic about a literalistic approach. (Actually, to parse out a philosophical implication here, a fuller analysis would be to say: If the literalistic interpretation is the correct one, then biblical inerrancy cannot be correct, because we already know that the universe and the earth are ancient. A parallel to this: If the literalistic interpretation of Joshua is the correct one, then biblical inerrancy cannot be correct, because we know that the earth revolves about the sun.) To judge these people as rejecting the testimony of God is extremely presumptuous. In effect, what YEC exclusivists are doing, without realizing it, is subverting their own doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

A few weeks ago, a young earth creationist asked me, "Do you believe we get to pick and choose, based on whatever factors we individually deem relevant, what portions of the Scriptures we are to accept as God's truth?" Here, again, the prejudicial rhetoric is embedded as an assumption right in the question. The very wording of the question assumes, consciously or unconsciously, the exclusivist YEC party line that rejection of the literalistic interpretation is rejection of God's truth. The very nature of this rhetoric precludes even the possibility that any differing interpretive approach can possibly be valid.

1 Kings 7:23 doesn't have a proper pi (especially since it's not blueberry), but then why should it? It is only if you were trying to treat it as being absolutely scientifically accurate by taking some kind of incorrect literalistic approach that you would even worry about the matter in the first place. There are many, many places in the Bible where the language is not "scientifically accurate." Who cares? Does Job 38:31-32 use astrological terminology? Yes. Does it teach astrology? Of course not. Can a man swallow a camel whole? Obviously not, but, fortunately, the idiomatic nature of that statement is at least clear enough that you don't try to think that it should be possible.

The Genesis account is embedded in the cultural metaphors of the ancient Israelites, and today the religious motifs simply go over most people's heads. Chaos, waters, darkness, abyss, Adam (man) and adamah (ground). The Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Eve (living; Genesis 3:20), the serpent, cherubim with a flaming sword. Step by step the creation account takes primitive religious idolatry apart and places God (the One God) and the creation in their proper perspectives. The next account goes further and places human beings in perspective to God. The motifs are ancient and ones that the ancient Israelites would have intuitively understood as a common part of their religious heritage (and in contrast to the idolatrous religions of the cultures surrounding them). They would not have tried to treat this as a literal history any more than you would think Paul Bunyon really lived or that a witch really built a house out of candy and gingerbread (though I realize my examples are quite a bit more mundane than Genesis).

Does it matter that the waters are divided by a dome (see also Job 37:18 and Job 26:11), with water above and water below? Does it matter that there are three days of morning and evening while there are no sun, moon, or stars? Is it relevant that God creates humans male and female on day six, while in the next account considerable time passes while Adam examines the various creatures and determines that none are suitable as a companion and then Eve is created? You've got to understand that troubling yourself about such questions, wondering, for example, about whether or not they are "scientifically accurate," just makes no sense when you are dealing with an account that has no intention or purpose of being science or history. It's like hashing out the schematics of the Beatles' yellow submarine. Why would you do it? It makes no sense. To do it is a waste of time and is to totally and completely miss the point.

In regard to the real world, as determined by several independent lines of objective examination of the real world, it is a fact that the universe and the earth have been around far, far longer than just 6,000 or 10,000 years. The interpretive approach to the Genesis creation account is not something to be a Pharisee about, yet despite this there are YEC Pharisees on every hand (and finger, and foot, and toe). The primary issue for many Christians, and YECs and old earth creationists especially, is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Yet in my experience what most YECs fail to understand is that because the antiquity of the universe, for example, has been proved beyond all shadow of a doubt, to insist on a literalistic interpretation of Genesis and reject all alternative interpretive approaches is to, literally, disprove the doctrine of biblical inerrancy itself.

What an interesting turn of events!

The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out.
    (Proverbs 18.15)

The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.
Day to day pours forth speech,
and night to night declares knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
their voice is not heard;
yet their voice goes out through all the earth,
and their words to the end of the world.
    (Psalm 19.1-4a)

Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do
and doesn't do it, sins.
    (James 4.17)