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.
posted September 25, 2009 at 8:49 am
Great post!
I think biogeography is also a very powerful witness against a recent global flood. Are we to believe that only Marsupials migrated from Ararat to Austrailia, leaving no trace along the way?
Or that Hawaii became populated with tens of thousands of different species of insects that crossed asia without stopping, and swam the pacific to take up residence on a small remote island chain?
Or that a blind, colorless cave-dwelling salamander hopped off the ark, crawled across the desert without getting toasted (no skin pigment), swam across the ocean, and took up residence in a single cave in Virginia — without having any sight to guide him on this journey?
Or are we to believe, as many creationists do, that none of these species existed 4500 years ago? And that there was a period of rapid speciation (re: evolution) that was thousands of times faster than what the standard theory requires?
The examples are endless. In every case, the patterns we observe look nothing like what we should expect to find if all living things had relatives who stepped off the Ark only 4500 years ago. However, they are exactly the kind of thing one would expect if speciation were caused by reproductive isolation that took place on the geologic time scale.
Just another data point along a solid trajectory that points us to the conclusion you made at the end. That “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.” How can it be? To assume that it was means that the Bible is a failure and can’t be trusted. Sadly, that is exactly where creationism and concordism take us.
GJG
posted September 25, 2009 at 11:45 am
Regarding the use of “ha-aretz,” Winslow is largely correct. However, there a is good reason that no translations render this term to mean “land” or “dry land” in Gen. 1:1:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the EARTH. Now the earth was formless and empty”… (Genesis 1:1-2)
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.”
More important is her application of this term to the Flood account. Even if she is correct and the flood-waters didn’t cover planet earth but only all the “dry ground,” it still amounts to the same thing—a worldwide flood! That Genesis is teaching a worldwide flood is inescapable. The account calls for nothing less:
“’Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.’” (Genesis 7:4 — This is only possible with a worldwide flood.)
“They rose greatly on the earth, and ALL the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. ..EVERY living thing that moved on the earth perished–birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. EVERYTHING on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. (Genesis 7:19-22)
The above forces us to conclude that Winslow’s interpretation isn’t exegetically based but instead ideologically-driven. If only theistic evolutionists would demonstrate the respect for Scripture that scholars show for literature in their attempts to interpret just what is being written!
posted September 25, 2009 at 12:29 pm
@Daniel
you said..
“Since water had covered the surface of the earth, the author must have intended “ha-aretz” to mean the entire expanse of the planet,”…
…isn’t the point of this article that the biblical author had no concept of a “planet”, but we apply that concept to their original ideas? Even juxtaposing it with “heavens” makes no difference in this case IMO, since their concept of “earth and heaven” was rooted in the scientific knowledge of the time. The author was referring to his own “earth” which in light of modern scientific discoveries we now know to be a large sphere in the midst of an extremely large universe.
Gordon explains this much better than I can in a comment though
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fperp1Mezt0
posted September 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Jeff,
Why limit Scripture to the current level of knowledge of that day? Isn’t it also supposed to be the Word of God (1 Peter 1:10-12)?
posted September 25, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Who’s limiting Scripture, I am just suggesting that God’s revelation to us comes in both the natural creation (Romans 1:20) and in Scripture.
This doesn’t limit scripture at all in my opinion, but extends our understanding of it.
I am not quite sure how 1 Peter 1:10-12 fits in to this, but I am pretty sure Peter is just saying the Gospel that was preached is inspired by the Holy Spirit. This doesn’t contradict anything I have said. I don’t think Peter had any intention of this particular narrative being used as a refutation to scientific discoveries that may influence our understanding of who God is. It is explaining Salvation and it’s source.
posted September 25, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Daniel, I think you’re right about the extent of the flood as depicted in the Bible. It is universal, not local, for the general reasons you gave. All the dry land was submerged, as you say. But it seems to me the author of this article is being quite biblical in her other contention: that, scripturally as in the rest of the ANE, the dry land is the eretz, the earth, and there is no concept of a planetary body anywhere in the text.
Genesis 1 makes best sense once you assume ANE cosmology. Space, time, and the great Deep (the seas) are primordial, or at least come first, like in general ANE cosmogony — just as Genesis 1:2 implies. And therefore the first, cosmological, creation tasks for God are to create the heavens (the sky dome, raquia, which is named heavens, shamiyam) and the earth (the dry land, eretz) below — just as Genesis 1:1 says. So God makes the raquia/shamiyam and uses it to separate the Deep. This opens a bubble of space from which the waters below recede and the eretz (the dry land) emerges — just as Genesis 1:9 says.
Eretz thus means the total extent of dry land in the universe, which exists underneath a protective sky dome, like a bubble, in the Deep. You’ve probably seen the illustrations. That is ANE cosmology and it is totally consistent and concordant with the picture of the creation process described in Genesis 1. It is also consistent with the flood narrative later, in which the protective earth-bubble is breached from above and below, and the whole extent of dry land which God had separated from the waters, once again merges back into the seas in sort of a reverse-creation.
In contrast, a planetary earth is not consistent with the text. In Genesis 1, the seas exist first, and the eretz is at first formless and void, later emerging from and being undergirded by the seas. This picture of the eretz is completely inconsistent with eretz being the planet Earth, which no “mainstream” creationist (ie non-flat-earther) believes to have existed before the oceans that pool on it; and which undergirds the seas, rather than vice-versa. So there is no physical correspondence to Genesis 1 here; or at least not any that works nearly as well as the correspondence with ANE cosmology.
By the way, in reading scripture in-context with the culture of the time, theistic evolutionists are by definition treating the text with the highest respect. It is only external doctrine about what-scripture-must-be-like that causes you to read it differently — for example, importing ideas about a planetary globe because of the external doctrine that Genesis must always concord with physical reality as discovered only in the modern age by science. That is not being respectful to the text.
——
Gordon, I’ve begun watching and enjoying your videos. Well done. You have a gift for teaching.
posted September 25, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Obviously the marsupials took the ark on a joy ride to Australia.
posted September 26, 2009 at 5:55 pm
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.
posted September 26, 2009 at 8:50 pm
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.”
posted October 2, 2009 at 10:01 pm
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.
posted October 5, 2009 at 9:43 am
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?