Every Friday, "Science and the Sacred" features an essay from a guest voice in the science and religion dialogue. This week's guest entry was written by Karen Strand Winslow, Ph.D., a Professor of Biblical Studies at the Graduate School of Theology, Azusa Pacific University.
When we read Genesis 1.1: "in the beginning God created the heavens and earth" we picture the origin of the atmosphere, space, solar systems, and galaxies. We think of the creation of the planet in our solar system named "Earth," whose shape is an oblate spheroid or a rotationally symmetric ellipsoid. This mental picture is natural, because the English term "Earth" is the name of the planet in this solar system on which humans reside. But in Genesis 1 "earth" does not mean the planet Earth. Genesis reports the origin of the "heavens and earth" as such terms meant in the author's time and within his worldview, which did not include a twenty-first century acquaintance with astronomy. What does "earth" mean in Genesis 1? The answer is provided in the text itself.
Genesis 1.1 "In the beginning God created ha-shamayim and ha-aretz [earth]." Genesis 1.1 is a title for what is to follow. Genesis 1.2a "The earth [ha-aretz] was without form and void" (there was no earth yet). After God created light, named day and night, and made a firmament (the heavens or sky) to divide the waters, God made ha-aretz.
Genesis 1.9 "And God said, 'Let the waters under the sky [ha-shamayim] be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land [ha-yabbashah] appear.' And it was so. 10 God called the dry land eretz [English: "earth"] and the waters that were gathered together he called seas. . . . "
Ha-aretz is "dry land" [Hebrew: ha-yabbashah]. God created land from which seed bearing plants and fruit trees would emerge and on which the creepers would creep. To the biblical writer, this land was not a planet or a globe spinning on its axis or orbiting the sun along with other planets.
Genesis 1 explains the origins of the land on which people live, farm, and travel. Ha-aretz is often a synonym for ha-adamah, "ground" in the Bible. Throughout the rest of Genesis, the biblical writers use ha-aretz to describe one's homeland, property, farmland, other regions, and bowing to the ground. Eretz is translated by the English term "earth" 660 times, and usually it refers to ground, soil, or the place where one is standing. In these cases, eretz is a synonym for the Hebrew adamah, the stuff from which adam is made in Genesis 2.7. The same term is translated by the English "land" or "country" 1,620 times in the Revised Standard Version, meaning location or place, boundaried or unboundaried, as in countryside. In addition, ha-aretz can mean the realm of all creatures, the realm or habitation of the living (Job 28.13; Psalm 27.13). Nowhere in the Bible does "earth" refer to a planet. Why is this important for science and theology?
Ha-aretz translated properly as "land," takes the air out of controversies over whether the Genesis flood story depicts a local or "universal" flood, an aspect of the polemic of young earth theorists and "creationists." (They suppose the earth to be less than 10,000 years old, based on adding the genealogies of Genesis. This is mixing genres--categories of literature--to develop a Western and even mathematical role for the Bible, while genealogies appear to link Abraham to Noah and Noah to Seth).
The term "universal flood" usually means that flood waters covered the entire planet. According to young earth theorists, the one-year Genesis flood laid down millions of layers of sediment across the planet, causing the earth to appear to be millions of years old. The basis of the young earth claim is the phrase "kol ha-aretz" in Genesis 7.3 and 8.9 and translated as "the whole earth." For readers who have a planet in mind, this translation biases them to believe the text claims Noah was saved from a global flood.
But the flood story of Genesis 6-9 assumes the same worldview represented in Genesis 1 and uses the same vocabulary throughout, including ha-aretz to mean land or dry ground. Throughout the flood account in Genesis, eretz and adamah are used synonymously. "Kol ha-aretz" means all the land known to the originators of the flood story, perhaps a location around the Black or Mediterranean Seas, which would have been the "world" of the biblical writers. Although flood stories exist among some ancient cultures and evidence for flooding is apparent in some areas around the world, some regions have no stories or traces of flooding. The layers of sediment and fossils in North America alone demonstrate without question that a single flood could not have deposited them. The ancient texts and artifacts of Ugarit, Egypt, and Japan contain no flood narratives, and there are only a few from Africa. Thus, the closest neighbors of Israel do not "remember" flooding.
Neither is there geological data to support a global flood around ten thousand years ago. Eight times more water than is now on earth would have been required for waters to cover the planet. There would have been the need for a new creation to restore the earth after the flood, because salt water destroys vegetation. Certain geological phenomena would have been destroyed if there had been a global flood. In Auvergne, France, there are cones of scoria and ashes from long extinct volcanoes, but there are no signs of effects of water. In addition, the 35,000 year old cave drawings from the Dordogne area of France (and countless other extant artifacts) would have been destroyed by a global flood.
The Bible was not intended as a primitive science manual that presented rudimentary scientific facts that would be verifiable at a later date when science caught up. When the biblical writers refer to "all the land" or even "the whole world," they refer to their whole world, not ours; they were not thinking of a planet, because they did not know they were living on a planet.
By observing the known world in all its magnificence--noticing, distinguishing, and naming its grandest features--Genesis 1, Psalm 104, Job 38 and Isaiah exemplify fundamentals of science--observation and organizing, but they are primarily theological. They cause us to worship God, as creator of all that is.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon




Obviously the marsupials took the ark on a joy ride to Australia.
Why do so many people insist on making a mythic text primary, and the physical universe secondary?
The physical is empirically testable, whereas mythic tales of creation are taken as a true history, (by a surprisingly large number of people). We have to start with placing primacy on the physical and allowing mythic tales to express their truths allegorically in locally meaningful forms. Yes some forms have reach beyond their time and place, and this is indicative of their speaking in a way which carries and effectively expresses archetypes. Flood myths are not only found within Genesis, they can be found in many traditions. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_mythhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_myth )
Religious forms and myth are not required to conform to science if they avoid making literal physical claims. Once they make or are interpreted to make physical claims, they make themselves vulnerable to being falsified. If a person interprets his religious forms and myths in such a way, he must either continuously shore up his beliefs as they are pressed by science, or live in a prison of denial, avoiding anything which may challenge his physical interpretation of religious and mythic forms. Better to avoid the problem by never projecting religious narrative onto the physical. Do that, and all the richness of the texts is available to you without the problems. Still, many will continue the religious masochism tango which accompanies physical interpretation of myth.
Hindu theology directly talks about Creation as occurring in some "days of Brahma." That would place each day of Creation as occurring in time very closely related to current science's view of the universe. The Hindu theology's age of the universe is very similar to that of modern scientists...just a tiny bit more...maybe another 10% older or so.
And, here is the key...that view has existed for thousands of years.
I do not think there is a conflict between science and religion.
Science has its skill in a very narrow and limited realm. Religion deals with the unseen.
Folks might enjoy a couple of books dealing with the relationship between quantum physics and mysticism:
"The Tao of Physcis" and "The Dancing Wu-Li Masters."
Re: Daniel's comment
Since water had covered the surface of the earth, the author must have intended “ha-aretz” to mean the entire expanse of the planet, especially since “earth” here was contrasted with “heavens.”
"Heavens" means the dome of the sky--The Sky--not the galaxies.
But I agree that the author's intention is to announce the great scope of the floodwaters, without any sense of a planet earth, other continents,etc. A biblical flood cannot explain fossils in North America.
Prof. Winslow: nice post. However, there are two significant problems: (1) there is no geological evidence even for a massively "local" flood, and indeed the evidence strongly contradicts any such notion; and (2) even a massively local flood could not have been anthropologically universal.
Isn't this just another effort to save a concordist reading of a text that can't be "literal" in any sense at all?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.