Genesis Chapter 1 is a Myth

Our country's most fundamental conflict between science and faith rests on the interpretation of one chapter in the Bible. But with a proper understanding of Genesis, the barriers between Christianity and Science are removed.

The first thing a Christian needs to understand is that not everything in the Bible is history and none of it is a scientific manual. A Christian shouldn't treat it as a scientific research paper nor expect the same things from it.

The Bible is filled to the brim with a massive range of various literary genres collected over a long period of time from one particular group of people. It includes: legal documents, letters, histories, biographies, myths, poetry, proverbs and even more genres that have died out in our culture (wisdom literature, apocalypses and more).

This makes the Bible incredibly fascinating for literature enthusiasts. It also makes it absolutely necessary for anyone who wants to believe it (or disbelieve it) to know exactly what they're looking at.

You know you're reading a particular genre because of the way it's written. When you see writing that is addressed to someone, includes general well-wishes and an, "until next time," you know you're looking at a letter.

Poetry (in the Bible) is written with parallelisms, contrasts and hyperboles. History is concerned with dates (even if just in relation to a particular king's reign) and a list of the most important events of the time. Legal documents detail two parties and agreements to confer rights in exchange for responsibilities.

It just so happens that Genesis chapter one is a myth. So is Genesis chapter two. As a matter of fact, up through chapter 11, it all seems to be written in the style of a myth. However, that much can be confusing even for literary scholars, so we'll focus on the obvious: Genesis chapters one and two. Thankfully, that's where the big modern fuss between Christians and Science comes from, too.

I know the Christians in my audience may be lost already, so let's say what Genesis chapters 1 and 2 aren't: history. It's easy enough to see if you actually read them. Go ahead, you'll be best prepared for what's next if you read them.

There's one account of Creation between Genesis 1:1 and 2:4(a). Then, the story starts all over again between Genesis 2:4(b) and 2:25. So, we've got two separate accounts of Creation. And they're different. And they contradict each other.

So, in the first two chapters of the Bible, we have an atheist's best friend and a Christian's worst nightmare: a blatant contradiction in what's claimed to be a divinely-inspired document. Apart from any bias, pride or shame, the simple truth is that the contradiction is there.

In the first Creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:4) God makes mankind (Adam) on the sixth day (1:26), after making absolutely everything else, bird, plant, land animal, everything. He makes mankind last, then he's done and he rests.

In the second Creation account (Genesis 2:4-25) the timeline isn't separated into days. But the first thing God does (after making the earth and heavens) is to make man (2:7). The Bible is very explicit here to make sure we know that nothing else on earth has been created yet, not even any plants (2:5). After God makes man, he makes a garden for him to till (2:8), then beasts to keep him company (2:19), and finally woman (2:22). Man was the first thing he made.

Yes, there's no doubt about it: Genesis chapter two explicitly contradicts the chapter immediately before it. In the first Creation account, God makes man absolutely last, but in the second, God makes man before everything else. Here, a Christian can do one of two things: cash in their chips and convert to atheism or some other religion because the Bible is obviously wrong, or make the simple statement that not everything in the Bible was intended to be read literally.

I believe the second choice is best. Some parts of the Bible (histories, legal documents and letters certainly come to mind) make literal claims. Others (like poetry or myths) usually do not.

Nowadays, it's easy enough to cut and paste from two different sources and hit the "print" button without noticing any obvious contradictions. But if you're one of the few guys who can read and one of the even fewer who can write at your time, don't you think you'd notice if what you're writing contradicts itself so quickly and obviously? Sure you would. Yet, it was written anyway. And it was copied, and copied, and copied, (each time by hand) and passed on for thousands of years.

Apparently, the people who were writing it didn't think that a literal interpretation of those two chapters of Genesis was the real point. (Or they would've fixed the contradiction, right?) So, if not history, what were they writing?

A myth. It so happens that a creation myth is one of the most common forms of myth. The first definition of myth given by American Heritage Dictionary is:

"A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society"

Let's see if our Creation stories, Genesis 1 & 2, fit here: "A traditional, typically ancient story" (check) "dealing with supernatural beings," (check) "ancestors," (check) "or heroes" (not so much), "that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people," (check) "as by explaining aspects of the natural world" (check) "or delineating the psychology," (check) "customs," (check) "or ideals" (check) "of society" (check).

The only aspect of a myth that these two chapters might not have is a hero, though some might debate Adam was a hero. In every other aspect both Genesis 1 & 2 fulfill every single aspect of a myth, kind of a myth culmination. It's definitely old, deals mainly with the supernatural being (Elohim/Yahweh) that a society (Israel) found primarily important. It describes their common ancestors (Adam & Eve), everything in the natural world, their customs (marriage, 2:24 and Sabbath 2:3), and their psychology and ideals (which we'll get to in a second).

It's obviously not history or its authors would make sure they removed contradictions and got the facts right. It fits every detail of a myth. You can look the sources up yourself, but I can tell you it also fits much of the same patterns as other known myths in the Ancient Near East at the time. Why shouldn't the author(s) use a literary genre they were familiar with?

Yet I know this will still rub many Christians the wrong way. But it shouldn't. The definition of myth explains a literary device in a cultural context for a given purpose. The definition of a myth doesn't make any inherent claims towards truth, fact or falsehood. Those decisions are up to the reader and the claims of the writer.

A myth has one main purpose: explaining. Specifically, it explains "psychology, customs or ideals." So, with Genesis as a myth, what is the main thing it's explaining? We'll leave the customs alone because they're pretty straight-forward and have nothing to do with the conflict between faith and science.

First and foremost, the point Genesis chapters 1 & 2 make without a doubt is that God made everything. It says that the God of Judeo-Christian tradition is responsible for everything there is, that nothing exists or existed without him. The same idea is echoed more explicitly in the Bible's third Creation account (John chapter 1). It says that whether it happened through a word, a breath, a thought or something else entirely, he is the ultimate cause of everything.

The second main ideal of Genesis chapters one and two (mainly chapter one) is that God created everything with order. The first Creation account is specifically set up in a very orderly pattern: a system of six days divided in half, with the first day echoed in the fourth, the second in the fifth and so on.

On day one, God made light and on day four, God made the sun, moon and stars. On day two, God separated the domes (oceans and sky) and on day five, God filled the oceans and sky with fish and birds. On day three, God made dry land and covered it with plants and on day six God made land animals and mankind to look after the plants and the animals.

The inherent order of creation and the natural world in the first Creation account is obvious. Whether or not God actually made things in that order is irrelevant (since it contradicts itself in the next chapter). The point is that God made things with order, that order is inherent in nature. That is the ideal that's been long espoused in Judaism and Christianity.

If it weren't for that ideal, for the belief in a natural order, no aspect of modern science would exist. The earliest Western scientists, biologists, and botanists, the ones responsible for the Scientific Method and everything else modern man would stake his life on, firmly believed the Judeo-Christian tradition. They believed it enough to search for order in the natural world and they eventually found it. That same ideal is the guiding principal of modern science; it's simply unfortunate that many modern scientists forgot where it came from.

Finally, the main point in both Creation accounts is that mankind was the culmination of God's work. Whether God made mankind first or last isn't important. What Genesis says is that mankind was the whole point of Creation.

Everything else in nature exists in special relation to man and man is exclusive in being made "in God's image" (1:26) and with "the breath of life" (2:7). The basic tenet of the anthropic principle, an idea formed by almost all modern scientists completely separately, is in complete agreement here.

These three things are the primary focus of the Creation accounts in Genesis chapters one and two. Believing that part of the Bible was written as a myth doesn't change the fundamental aspects of Christianity, it simply enforces them.

Properly interpreting Genesis also shows that there's nothing inherently contradictory between the Biblical account of Creation and scientific evidence for it. There are many more points that could be made from these two chapters (such as mankind's inherent need of relationships), but scientific detail and historical fact aren't among them.

The one main conflict that still exists between science and faith is belligerence on the part of many scientists. Science exists to describe only the material world. Unfortunately, many scientists have taken that to the extreme (much like anyone who spends much time and effort in their chosen profession) and claim the material world is all that exists.

However, that is not a claim that science can make. It only claims to find order in the natural world and to describe it and attempt to predict it. Whether the spiritual world or any metaphysical realm exists and how it is ordered, science has no say.

These things are completely beyond the realm of science and science can neither validate nor invalidate their existence. Much like a myth's primary purpose is the worldview of a people, supernatural beings, their ancestors, and specifically their psychology, customs and ideals, but not science.

Some modern anthropologists believe that many or most myths have at least some factual or circumstantial origin. Whether you choose to believe that about Genesis chapters one and two is irrelevant. Just keep in mind that there can be a difference between facts and truth. Facts may point to the truth but they don't contain it.

If you attempt to consider something metaphysical or supernatural, the reality is not simply the sum of the parts; they only help to describe it. An idea can be true even when the facts are not. Decide for yourself what you believe about Genesis or the Bible. Just know there's no contradiction between faith and the pursuit of science here.