Why Answers in Genesis Doesn’t Get Genre

Last updated on: February 29, 2016 at 10:56 am by Libby Anne

Why Answers in Genesis Doesn’t Get Genre 2016-02-29T10:56:12-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Simon Turpin of Answers in Genesis has set out to explain what makes a biblical interpretation correct. I clicked through expecting to find a response that at least attempted to be challenging, but what I found was highly simplistic and severely missing the point. Turpin starts with this:

Sometimes, after speaking at a church on the subject of biblical creation (i.e., the belief that God created the world in six 24-hour days, that there was no death before the Fall, and that there was a global Flood), I encounter the objection, “But that’s just your interpretation!”

Of course, Turpin cannot escape the fact that there are thousands of different Christian denominations, each varying slightly in how its adherents and leaders interpret the Bible. He acknowledges that there are multiple interpretations, then, but argues that his interpretation is the right one—just like nearly every other Christian pastor and evangelist. Turpin justifies his assertion with two points:

Firstly, we need to interpret Scripture using the historical-grammatical approach, which means taking the text plainly according to its literary genre (2 Corinthians 4:2). The plain meaning is the one intended by the author, and it can be determined by the literary, biblical, and historical context. Thus the plain reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is that the text describes events that took place in six 24-hour days that occurred in time-space history. This is the natural interpretation (exegesis) of the text and the one that is meant by the author.

Can we pause for a moment to note that Turpin has no way of knowing for sure what the author of Genesis meant his readers to understand? Genesis was written at a time when people wrote epics filled with both human and divine figures. Think the Epic of Gilgamesh, for instance, or the Iliad and the Odyssey. Did the authors of those stories mean for them to be taken completely literally? Or did they assume their readers and listeners would understand them as myth, as embellished stories that are loosely based on past events but have meaning that is not attached to their exact factual accuracy? That’s actually a really good question, and one I would love the opportunity to put to a classics professor.

It’s also worth noting that biographies of important figures like Alexander the Great are also peppered with stories of divine interventions. When historians read biographies written before the advent of modern history, they do so with the assumption that what they’re reading is likely embellished or otherwise changed or enhanced. Part of a challenge of being an ancient historian is separating the fact from the fiction. The ancients did not practice history the way we do today, and understanding that is critical to how we approach ancient writings like Genesis. I am sure that Turpin would not be comfortable with any of that, but I’m afraid he’s the one who started it by talking about genre as though it actually matters.

It may be worth letting Turpin know that some historians and theologians have argued that Genesis 1 was actually written in the genre of ancient hebrew poetry. But then I suspect Turpin likely cares more about asserting that Genesis 1 is literally true than he actually does about its genre.

This actually ties well into Turpin’s second point:

Secondly, a correct interpretation comes from the text and not from outside ideas that are imposed upon it, such as evolution and millions of years. This was the reading of the text by most scholars before the eighteenth century including the Jewish historian Josephus, the early church fathers, Theophilus of Antioch, Lactantius, and Basil the Bishop of Caesarea, as well as the Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin.

Before we get to the bit about evolution, I would argue that it is irresponsible to read the text of the Bible in isolation from outside information and source material. For instance, if we weren’t familiar with writings like the Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Iliad or the Odyssey, or ancient biography, we would have less understanding of where the writing of the Bible fits vis a vis other ancient writings. There is also much to be learned from modern archaeology about the Old Testament accounts, and even the New Testament has to be understood within the context of first century Judaism and Roman history.

Let me ask you this—if the Bible is a divine book, would it be threatened by a deeper understanding of its creation, genre, and context? Or would this greater understanding enhance and improve one’s reading and understanding of that text?

What about Turpin’s argument that no church father before the eighteenth century read evolution into the Biblical account of Genesis? Turpin is of course speaking of Christians who, today, accept the theory of evolution—these Christians are often referred to as “theistic evolutionists.” There are several problems with Turpin’s assertion. First of all, no one knew about evolution (or even how old very the world is) before the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, so we shouldn’t be surprised no one had ever tried to work out the seeming contradiction between evolution and Genesis. However, Turpin is simply wrong if he means to suggest that the church fathers universally took Genesis 1 literally up until the eighteenth century. They did not. In fact, many church fathers argued that the first chapter of Genesis was not meant to be taken literally or understood as science.

But there’s another thing to remember too—Turpin’s assertion rests on the assumption that the author of Genesis intended to convey scientific truths and not simply moral truths, and the assumption that God cared about the holy text he dictated to his followers being scientifically accurate. I don’t think either of these assumptions are merited, at least without evidence or argumentation. The Bible has long been understood as a sacred religious text. It is only more recently that there has been a concerned effort to argue that it should also be approached as a science textbook. But you wouldn’t know that from Turpin’s article.

I no longer identify as a Christian and I don’t much stake in arguments between young earth creationist Christians and theistic evolutionist Christians. I do, however, have a problem with people like Turpin so badly misusing or misunderstanding the very basics of ancient history and genre, while claiming he knows them. I don’t like seeing people being misled or lied to—and Answers in Genesis does this a lot.

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

creationism

evolution

Previous Post

February 29, 2016

How I've Learned (and Unlearned) Parenting

Next Post

March 1, 2016 How I Came to Identify with Hillary Clinton

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Believers are sealed with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their inheritance.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE