A literal reading of Genesis?

One of the message boards I frequent just recently banned any discussion concerning the different interpretations of the Genesis creation account. This particular message board holds to a literal reading of Genesis and thus from 'this point' forward, no arguments against a literal interpretation of Genesis, whether they be biblical, scientific or philosophical, are to be permitted. I'll note in passing that this rule was to take affect in the Apologetics and Evangelism sub-forum of this particular message board. Thus, I've been inspired to write.

One of the major points of contention was that anyone who does not believe the cosmos to be between 6,000 and 12,000 years old was holding, effectively, a non-literal interpretation of Genesis. I think this is an area where people are confused and there is great confusion as a result. To say up front, probably to the disagreement of many, Genesis nowhere teaches an age of the cosmos. Furthermore, nowhere in the Bible do we find an age of the cosmos. It's also ironic to note that those who consider themselves literalists when it comes to their interpretation of Genesis are, in fact, not literalists so long as they maintain that Genesis teaches a specific age of the cosmos.

What used to happen during the 'debates' I was involved with on how to properly interpret Genesis (I say used to happen because obviously, these debates won't be happening anymore) is that inevitably, a young earth creationist will claim that 'scripture interprets scripture' and thus, we can deduce the age of the earth in other scripture, which then apply to Genesis, and even though not explicitly mentioned in Genesis, we arrive at an age of creation which Genesis itself teaches. Incredibly, this doesn't make sense for a few reasons. Firstly, it's a poor hermeneutic. While it's true that 'scripture interprets scripture' there is also another rule of interpretation to keep in mind, that rule is this: if I take a piece of scripture and claim that it teaches such-and-such, I have to find such-and-such teaching in that piece of scripture. Otherwise, if I turn to a second piece of Scripture in an attempt to interpret the first, and in doing so thereby discover that what I thought was in the first piece of scripture isn't there but continue to teach that it is, then I've committed the error known as proof texting, forcing meaning into the text that simply isn't there. So, if I say a literal reading of Genesis teaches a 6,000 - 12,000 year old creation, I have to find that teaching in the Genesis creation narrative. The reality of the matter is that if I handed anyone the book of Genesis and gave them only one task, to tell me how old the Bible says creation is, they will not be able to come to a figure because Genesis simply does not teach an 'age of the earth' or an 'age of creation'. Even if one were to appeal to genealogies or chronologies found in Genesis, these would simply go towards showing that there was 'X' amount of time between person 'A' and person 'B'. Likewise if I gave one the entire Bible and the same task, they would still not be able to come up with an 'age of the earth' or an 'age of creation'. Thus, one cannot (or should not) be accused of holding a non-literal reading and interpretation of Genesis simply because they believe creation to be older than 12,000 years old. As said above, Genesis doesn't comment on how old the cosmos are.

Secondly, to repeat what was said above, Scripture does not give an age for the cosmos. Those who do arrive at an age of 6,000 to 12,000 years do so by calculating the various genealogies found in Scripture and then attaching those genealogies to Genesis, hence the reason for my saying that those who claim to be interpreting the Genesis creation narrative literally, actually aren't. This, combined with the presupposition that the days of Genesis are 24-hour periods, is how one arrives at the age indicated above. That's it, nothing more. Subsequently, young earth creationism then turns into a reactionary theology that attempts to dispute what is generally the agreed consensus of various modern scientific fields regarding the age of the cosmos. When it comes down to it, then, and we're asked what theory presents the best interpretation of the facts. We're asked to either go with young earth creationism and its genealogies, or we're asked to side with the findings of: physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genomics, linguistics, anthropology and archaeology. I have a sneaking suspicion it's not the scientific consensus that is wrong, but that's just a sneaking suspicion.

What is truly exasperating is the misconception all of this causes. That people will come to the conclusion that the Bible actually does teach the cosmos is 6,000 to 12,000 years old. It's all rather unfortunate.

Related posts:

1. Thoughts: The Language of Genesis
2. Say what?!
3. Genesis 19:1–11
4. Evangelicals reading to learn?!
5. It’s Genetic!