The Bible Literalists Struggle to Argue that Genesis Isn't All Myth

I've written before about the huge problem facing those who support Biblical literalism now that science and the genome studies have pretty much proven that Adam and Eve never existed as historical figures. And the line of dominoes that fall as a result is that if Adam and Eve did not exist, there was no fall and banishment from the Garden of Eden and no need for a Messiah. Stated differently, the entire story line of Christianity collapses. Faced with this potentially fatal blow to the house of cards faith systems - and the monetary benefits reaped by professional Christians - some writers are endeavoring to engage in disingenuous mental and faith related contortions to avoid the inevitable conclusion: the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. And the creation story in Genesis is no more factual that the creation myths of other religions. A piece at Biologos exemplifies this losing battle to avoid the obvious. Here are some excerpts:

Genesis seems to affirm many things that the contemporary scientific consensus would disagree with, including but not limited to the following: the cause and source of creation (God versus Big Bang and random and/or natural processes), the length of time for creation (billions of years versus six days), the place of earth in reference to other celestial entities (earth is at the center according to a plain reading of Gen 1:14-17, which places the sun, moon, and starts ‘in’ the firmament, which is a solid dome, while scientists universally affirm that the earth goes around the sun.), the order of creation (day and night and vegetation come before the sun was created, according to Gen. 1:4-5, while current scientific theories would state that without light from the sun, there would be no day and no vegetation on earth), and whether or not there is or was a solid dome somewhere above the earth which is holding back the primal waters.

But, what if we read this passage of scripture differently? That is, what if think of Genesis 1 as something similar to a parable or an allegory, for instance? I do not mean to suggest that Genesis 1 is exactly a parable or allegory, but that there might be similarities between them, and that considering these similarities can help us move forward to reconsider how this passage might be read together with contemporary scientific consensus.

Parables and allegories, as we know, are stories told to convey deep and powerful truths. It is not the literal correspondence between each detail in a parable and actual reality that matters, but the central message and meaning of the parable.

And there are good reasons to take such an allegoric and contextual reading to Genesis 1. Indeed, we find many Ancient Near Eastern cultures to have held similar creation stories. . . . . This is to say that the peoples of the ancient world who were neighbors of the ancient Hebrews all believed that the world was created by divine beings who had separated and pushed back primal chaotic forces to create an orderly cosmos. Many also believed that the sky was a solid dome which held back water, which would have explained, for instance, the source of rain.

Now, just as it makes sense for God to have revealed himself in ways that first century Jews, Greeks, and Romans could understand, it also makes sense that God would have revealed himself in the time of ancient Israel in the ways that they and their neighbors could understand—that is, through the basic cosmological worldview that they would already understand. Looked at in this way, we may then begin to ask the question of what we can find that is different between the scripture and these heathen cosmogonies, and we begin, I think, to get a sense of what is truly at the heart of the biblical story of creation.

If we allow ourselves the room to see Genesis 1 as something similar to a parable or allegory, rich in symbolism and metaphor, spoken in a language and assuming a worldview that ancient Near Eastern people could understand, we are freed from having to defend the Bible against what otherwise appear to be disagreements with current scientific consensus…about the current structure of our solar system, about how the universe came into being, and even about how human beings came into the world

Nor do Christians, using scientific tools, need to buy into Satan’s lie that a universe that appears to function in an orderly, natural way came into being and functions as it does all by itself. We Christians know better. We believe and scripture affirms that God created this good world, that God created its laws, principles, and elements. We need not, therefore, fear science. It is a gift from God given to the church to understand God’s handiwork in the world, to worship God for God’s majesty and wonder as its creator, and to serve God’s purposes as caretakers for the people and the creation that God loves.

I'm sorry, but these attempts do not save the Bible from being false in the final analysis and less than authoritative on myriad issues. Indeed, if the Bible is parable or allegory, then nothing in it can be taken literally - including the supposed condemnations of homosexuality. And the result is that the Old testament of the Bible is nothing more than a competing creation myth (and subsequent tribal myths) with everything else in it built upon sand. As more people grasp this reality, expect the hysterics of the professional Christian set to increase as the make a last effort to hold on to the power and control that they have wrongfully wielded for far too long.