Is a literal reading of Genesis important to the Gospel?

Stephen W Boyd has written a very good paper on the genre of Genesis (specifically chapter 1-2:3) in which he shows statistically that the early chapters of Genesis are the same as other narrative texts found in the Old Testament and very different from Hebrew poetry. Poetic metaphor teaches a truth, but its words do not have their normal meanings and the sequence of events portrayed in it should not be correlated with real time. Poetry "uses words to express feelings addressed by a speaker talking or thinking to him/herself rather than to the reader. Its essential quality is... meditation." Narrative on the other hand, "uses words to develop a view of character and situation through the report of the story-teller to the reader." Genesis is clearly narrative and narratives are intended to be read historically. Boyd quotes Sailhamer as saying, "A biblical narrative text takes the raw material of language and shapes it into a version of the world of empirical reality. Its essential linguistic structures are adapted to conform to events in real life. The constraints that shape real life (for example, the limitations of time and space and perspective) are the constraints to which historical narrative texts must strive to conform in their imitation of real life . . . Events and characters are put before the reader as happening just as they happen in real life. The reader looks at the events in the narrative in much the same way as he or she would look at events in real life. They happen in the text before one’s eyes."

Elsewhere he quotes Sternberg, "Were the narrative written or read as fiction, then God would turn from the lord of history into a creature of the imagination, with the most disastrous results. The shape of time, the rationale of monotheism, the foundations of conduct, the national sense of identity, the very right to the land of Israel and the hope of deliverance to come: all hang in the generic balance. Hence, the Bible’s determination to sanctify and compel literal belief in the past. It claims not just the status of history but . . . of the history, the one and only truth that, like God himself, brooks no rival . . . . if as seekers for the truth, professional or amateur, we can take or leave the truth claim of inspiration, then as readers we must simply take it—just like any other biblical premise or convention, from the existence of God to the sense borne by specific words—or else invent our own text."

We have a choice. Believe that it happened as the author states, or not. If we claim that it is unimportant then we are out of touch with the New Testament and also most of church history. Creation in Genesis is rooted in the theology of the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus. To say that it is detrimental to Christian apologetics and a hinderance to reaching non-Christians is wrong. Nearly all the New Testament books refer to Genesis (about 200 times). Half the references are to the early chapters of Genesis and 63 are from Gen 1-3.  Fourteen are from the flood texts.

Jesus treated the early chapters of Genesis as literal history and marriage is tied to the creation story (Matthew 19:1–9); A literal Adam (Luke 3:38); Murder is tied to the early Genesis texts (Matthew 23:35); The nature and origin of evil and sin is tied to Genesis (John 8:44); Sin and salvation are connected to Genesis (Romans 5:12–21); Sexual immorality is explained in the context of Genesis 2:24 (1 Corinthians 6:12–20); Human relationships (1 Corinthians 11:11–12; Ephesians 5:28-33); Eschatology - Last Days (1 Corinthians 15:21–22); The Apostle Paul describes a literal event in the Garden of Eden (2 Corinthians 11:3); Deception (1 Timothy 2:13–14); Abel (Hebrews 11:4; 12:24); An actual worldwide flood (2 Peter 3:5–6).

If Jesus and the New Testament writers can speak matter of fact and literally of Genesis and the creation accounts, to say that the issue is unimportant is to detract from the significance given by the Lord himself and through the Holy Spirit to the New Testament authors.

An example of misreading Genesis 1 comes from John Lennox in his book, Seven Days that Divide the World.
Lennox refers to poetry (Ps 93:1) as if to prose and treats historical narrative as if poetry. The issue is not whether Genesis is written as history because that is settled, it's whether we are prepared to accept it as such.

Lennox tries to separate the first couple of verses of Genesis 1 from the rest in an attempt to make room for billions of years  so producing a modified Gap Theory. This is totally unwarranted and an example of eisegesis! Genesis 1:1 is the opening sentence with verse 2 as the explanatory parenthesis (using the waw disjunctive) to begin the qualifying statement: God made the cosmos and this is what the earth was like when he started work on it. There is nothing in the Hebrew of these verses which suggests a time gap. What Lennox appears to be doing in his book is reinterpreting Genesis on the basis of his world view rather than allowing faith, along with reason to dictate his thinking. Problem is, some Christians would rather compromise the Bible in the face of materialism than stand on the plain truth of the Word. Jesus endorsed a literal reading of Genesis and so did the writers of the Bible and there is no room in the text for an old age without adding ideas to it.

Jesus himself shows that the cosmos is recent in his statement in Matthew 19 about marriage and creation. He said "... Have you not read, that he who created them from the beginning, made them male and female". The Greek here is "ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς" and clearly refers to Genesis 1:1 which reads in the Greek translation (LXX) "Ἐν ἀρχῇ". It's also interesting that the Peshitta, an early Syriac Aramaic translation reads ” ܒܪܫܝܬ” (bereshiyt) which is the same as found in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1” בְּרֵאשִׁית” (bereshiyt)

There is nothing in science which contradicts Scripture once the human invention called evolution is put aside as the alternative faith that it is. Then trying to accommodate with a mix of long ages and special creation is no longer necessary.

Genesis and Myth

The first tablet to consider, the Atrahasis Epic, also known as The Babylonian Genesis, is dated to the 17th century B.C and contains some 1,200 lines of text. Although presented from the theological perspective  of the Babylonians, it records an epic story similar in details to the biblical Creation and Flood. In the Babylonian tale, the gods rule the heavens and earth, just as in the biblical statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). The gods made man from the clay of the earth mixed with blood, much like the biblical account of man made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7, 3:19) and the later statement by Moses (who wrote Genesis) that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Lev. 17:11). According to *this Babylonian account man was created to take over the lesser gods' chores of tending the land, as in the biblical story where man is assigned to the Garden of Eden to "tend it and keep it" (Genesis 2:15). When men multiply on the earth and become too noisy, a flood is sent (after a series of plagues) to destroy mankind, much like the biblical account where mankind corrupted the earth and filled it with violence, resulting in judgment (Genesis 6:11-13). In the Babylonian story, one man, Atrahasis (which gave the tablet its present name), is given advance warning of the Flood and told to build a boat, in a manner similar to the biblical Noah (Genesis 6:14). He builds a boat and loads it with food and animals  and birds, just as in the Bible (Genesis 6:14-22). Through this means Atrahasis is saved while the rest of the world perishes, like Noah and his family who board the Ark while "everything that is on the earth perishes" (Genesis 6:17-18, 23). Much of the Babylonian text is destroyed at this point so there is no record of the landing of Atrahasis boat, nevertheless, as in the conclusion of the biblical account, the story ends with Atrahasis offering a sacrifice to the gods and the chief god accepting mankind's existence (compare Genesis 8:20-22).

The second text known as the Enuma Elish presents a Mesopotamian version of the Creation. Actually seven tablets have been joined together to comprise an epic tale, but only one section records the Creation account. Here we are told that the universe, in its component parts, began with the principal gods (who represent forces of nature), and was completed by Marduk who became the head of the Babylonian pantheon (assembly of gods).

Like in the Genesis account, the watery chaos is separated into heaven and earth (compare Genesis 1:1-2, 6-10), light pre-exists the creation of sun, moon, and stars (as in Genesis 1:3-5, 14-18), and the number seven figures prominently (compare Genesis 2:2-3). However, beyond this the story is controlled by pagan concepts: the gods procreate other gods whom they in turn seek to destroy because of their loud parties. The mother of these gods, Tiamat, creates monsters to eat them up, but the strongest of them - Marduk - cuts her in half. It is from her two halves that the heavens and earth are formed. Mankind is created from the blood of the captured leader of the rebel gods (a sort of devil among the gods) in order to work as slaves for the lazy lower gods and feed the Babylonian pantheon. This mythological character leaves little in common with the early chapters of Genesis, where God creates man in His own image, gives him the world to enjoy, and cares for him and seeks fellowship with him. Nevertheless, there are enough similar elements, and unusual parallel concepts (such as light being created before the sun, moon, and stars), to indicate that the Enuma Elish shared in the knowledge of biblical cosmogony (Creation).

The third tablet, a Mesopotamian epic called the Gilgamesh Epic, is perhaps the best known and preserves numerous parallels to the biblical Flood. It was named after the its principal character, King Gilgamesh who is supposed to have ruled the Mesopotamian city of Uruk around 2600 B.C. and who in this story is searching for immortality. The entire account is recorded on twelve tablets, but the the Flood story appears in tablet eleven. In the story, Gilgamesh is told about the Flood by Utnapishtim, a man who had gained immortality, and like the biblical Noah, had also passed safely through the waters of the Flood. In his account of the Flood, he says the creator god (Ea) favored him by warning him of the Flood and commanding him to build a boat (compare Genesis 6:2, 13-17). On this boat he brought his family, his treasures, and all living creatures, as with Noah (see Genesis 6:18-22; 7:1-16), and escaped a heaven-sent storm which destroyed the rest of mankind (compare Genesis 7:17-23). By his reckoning, the storm ended on the seventh day, and the dry land emerged on the twelfth day, similar in terminology to the Bible's 40 days of flooding with dry land on the 50th day (Genesis 7:17, 24). In the Gilgamesh Epic the boat came to rest on Mount Nisir in Kurdistan, similar to the biblical story which has the boat land on Mount Ararat in Turkey (Genesis 8:4). Utnapishtim then sent out a dove, a swallow, and finally a raven, much like Noah who sent out a raven and then a dove (Genesis 8:7-11). Finally, in the Mesopotamian account, when the raven did not return to the boat, Utnapishtim left the boat and offered a sacrifice to the gods. Noah did the same when the dove failed to return and in sacrificed to God (Genesis 8:12-21).

These pagan accounts, when first published in Europe in the late 1800's, caused quite a sensation, rivaling the just published theory of Charles Darwin. Bible believers found in them evidence that the biblical stories were in fact true, while biblical critics claimed they diminished the Bible's claim to uniqueness proved the Bible had been copied from ancient mythology. Both these saints and skeptics were correct in recognizing that the issue raised by the discovery of these tablets was that of source; that is, from where did their stories come?

Three different answers to this question have been offered by scholars:

  • They were originally Mesopotamian tales which were borrowed and adapted by the Israelites to fit their conception of God.
  • They were originally Israelite accounts that were borrowed and adapted for the Mesopotamian religion and culture.
  • Both the Mesopotamian and Israelite (biblical) accounts came from a common ancient source.

Concerning the first answer, as far as we know, the biblical accounts were not written down until Moses in the 15th century B.C. Therefore, it seems unlikely that the "older" (17th-19th century B.C.) Mesopotamian stories were derived from the Israelite. Concerning the second answer, it is probable that Moses used sources in compiling his accounts in Genesis. The account in Genesis 14 of Abraham's battle with Babylonian and Mesopotamian figures in order to rescue his family members bears indications that he had older sources at his disposal. Could this imply that there was a literary dependence on pagan mythological texts in compiling the biblical accounts? The plain answer is no. While the use of extra-biblical sources does not conflict with the doctrine of biblical inspiration (since there are numerous instances of non-canonical works cited in both the Old and New Testaments, see Joshua 10:13; 1 Samuel 24:13; 2 Samuel 1:18; Luke 4:23; Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12; Jude 14), the possession and occasional use of such texts by the biblical writers does not require there was a literary dependence. The biblical writers continually stress that their primary source was divine  revelation, and even if secondary sources may have been used in some cases, it does appear that they were in this case. The many significant differences and omissions between the accounts make it unlikely that either the Mesopotamian or biblical authors borrowed from the other.

However, could there have been a tradition dependence, that is, could the biblical accounts simply be variations of Mesopotamian myths? Again, this is unlikely. One reason for this is that the biblical account is monotheistic (one God) and its characters ethically moral. By contrast, the pagan accounts are polytheistic (many gods) and its characters ethically capricious. This contrast is evident, for example, in the way the two texts treat the account of the post-Flood world. In the biblical  text, God accepts Noah's sacrifice and promises to never again destroy the earth by a flood (Genesis 8:20-22). In the Atrahasis Epic, the gods discover to their chagrin that they have wiped out their only source for food (men's sacrifices), and so because they are hungry, decide to put up with mankind (who alone can feed them). Another reason is that important details in the accounts differ (such as the sizes of the boat, the duration of the Flood, the sending out of the birds, etc). A.R. Millard, discoverer of the Atrahasis Epic, stated concerning the question of alleged borrowing: "All who suspect or suggest borrowing by the Hebrews are compelled to admit large-scale revision, alteration, and reinterpretation in a fashion that cannot be substantiated for any other composition from the ancient Near East or in any other Hebrew writing … Granted that the Flood took place, knowledge of it must have survived to form the available accounts; while the Babylonians could only conceive of the event in their own polytheistic language, the Hebrews, or their ancestors, understood the action of God in it. Who can say it was not so?" Therefore, it seems more likely that both the Mesopotamian and Israelite accounts reflect a commonly preserved knowledge of events that occurred in earth's pre-Flood history. The variations in these stories were passed down by each separate culture that developed after the division of nations in the post-Flood ancient Near East (see Genesis 10-11). Those nations that departed from the teaching of the one true God as Creator and Judge at the Flood re-interpreted the history they had learned in light of the deities they had come to worship. In this way, they preserved the essential historicity of the events while re-casting the religious elements according to their own perspective.

Archaeology has made available evidence of a common knowledge of the essentials of the Genesis story. Now it is up to us to decide if the myths held in modern science concerning these events do not reflect their own departure from the original design.

Genesis: Myth or History?

by      Dave Miller, Ph.D.

What do we mean by “myth”? German theologian Rudolf Bultmann popularized the notion that the New Testament must be stripped of its mythical elements, specifically, its supernatural features (e.g., Jesus Christ and Mythology, 1958). “Myth,” therefore, in theological circles refers to a traditional, non-literal story in a particular culture that manifests that culture’s world view. The story serves as a vehicle to convey a truth, without necessarily being historically true. The Bible’s depictions of heaven, hell, demons, evil spirits, and Satan are viewed as symbols for deeper meanings rather than being literally existent. Many theologians, and now many Americans, insist that the Bible is a pre-scientific document that is riddled with the errors that accompanied early man’s quest for knowledge.

Along with the onset of modern scientific discovery and understanding has come a widespread tendency to compromise the biblical text of Genesis 1-11. Otherwise conservative thinking Christians have not been immune to this deadly cancer that ultimately undermines the entire Bible and one’s ability to arrive at the truth. In the 1980s, it was discovered that evolution was being taught by two Abilene Christian University professors. One of the biology professors provided his class with a handout that included a photocopy of the first page of Genesis. In the margin he scrawled the words, “Hymn, myth” (Thompson, 1986, p. 16). The university mobilized in an attempt to discredit the charge and sweep it under the proverbial carpet, but the evidence was decisive, as acknowledged even by objective outsiders (see Morris, 1987, 16[5]:4). The fact is that evolution has been taught on other Christian college campuses as well. The lack of outcry testifies to the fact that even Christians and their children have been adversely influenced by secular education.
It is amazing, even shocking, to see the extent to which the authority of the biblical text in general, and the book of Genesis in particular, has been undermined in the minds of the average American, especially in the last half century. In virtually every corner of our country, relaxed and compromised views of the Bible prevail—even among otherwise conservative Americans and those who profess to be Christian. Before leaving office, President Bush (“W”) was interviewed by Cynthia McFadden on ABC’s “Nightline.” When asked if he believed the Bible to be literally true, he responded: “You know. Probably not.… No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is…has got… You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son’” (“Bush Says…,” 2008). When asked about creation and evolution, Bush said:

    I think you can have both. I think evolution can—you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an Almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution (“Bush Says…”).

Myriad instances could be cited in which Americans manifest the degrading effects of skepticism, atheism, evolution, and liberal theology.

What a far cry from most of America’s history. It is hard to believe that—up until the 1960s—American education was thoroughly saturated with the biblical account of Creation (e.g., New England Primer, 1805, pp. 31-32; Webster’s The Elementary Spelling Book, 1857, p. 29). The book of Genesis was taken as a straight-forward account of the formation of the Universe and the beginning of human history. People took God at His word. Though liberal theology swept through Europe in the late 19th century, which included attacks on the verbal, inerrant inspiration of the Scriptures, and though the Creation account began to be openly challenged at the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee, still, the majority of Americans continued to accept the biblical account right on up to World War II. Since then, however, sinister forces have been chipping away at belief in the inspiration and integrity of the Bible. They have succeeded in eroding confidence in its trustworthiness and authority.

But there are no excuses. The evidence is available, and it is overwhelming. No one can stand before God at the end of time and justify themselves for their rejection of Genesis as a straightforward record of literal history. Failure to take Genesis at face value can easily result in acceptance of views and/or practices that will jeopardize one’s standing with God.

New Testament Proof that Genesis is Literal History

If we had no other means by which to determine whether Genesis is myth or history, the New Testament alone is ample proof. Depending on how one calculates the material, the New Testament has at least 60 allusions to Genesis 1–11, with over 100 allusions to the entire book (Cosner, 2010). Jesus and the writers of the New Testament consistently treated Genesis as literal history. As a matter of fact, every New Testament author refers to Genesis, and nearly every New Testament book does as well. Their handling of the Genesis text demonstrates that they considered the events to have actually occurred, rather than being mythical or legendary folklore that merely contained useful lessons.


Consider a sampling of allusions made by Jesus:

    He indicated the foundation of the marriage institution, quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as historical precedent and proof that carte blanche divorce is unacceptable to God (Matthew 19:4-5; Mark 10:6-8). Did He mean to ground marriage on fairytales?

    Jesus mentioned Abel as a real person whose blood was shed on account of his righteous behavior, just like other historical personages in human history (Matthew 23:35). If Abel was not an actual person who lived on Earth, neither was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom Jesus said the Jews “murdered between the temple and the altar”—an actual physical location.

    Jesus declared Satan to be a “murderer from the beginning” and the father of lies—referring to the Fall (John 8:44; Genesis 3:4,19; cf. Romans 5:12; 1 John 3:8).

    Jesus referenced Moses’ writings as genuine representations of history (John 5:46-47).

    Jesus spoke of the “days of Noah” and the Flood as an actual historical event that has many parallels to the future coming of the Son of Man in terms of what people will be doing with their time (Matthew 24:37-39).

    Jesus compared Capernaum to Sodom, saying, “for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you” (Matthew 11:23-24). Sodom would have had to have been an actual city for it to “have remained until this day” and for it to fare more tolerably in the Day of Judgment (cf. 10:15).

    The genealogical lists of Jesus’ physical lineage identify actual historical persons in the first century all the way back to persons originally named in Genesis, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Tamar (Matthew 1:1-2), as well as Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Noah (Luke 3:36-37).


Paul, likewise, treated persons, places, and incidents in Genesis as if historically real. Here is a sampling of some of his allusions:

    He quoted Genesis 1:3 to note how God caused light to shine out of darkness (2 Corinthians 4:6).

    Quoting Genesis 2:7, Paul said Adam was the first human being on Earth (1 Corinthians 15:45).

    He claimed that Adam was made from dust (1 Corinthians 15:47)—as Genesis records.

    He noted how the woman is “from” (ek—out of) man (1 Corinthians 11:8,12), referring to the fact that Eve was literally taken out of Adam’s body.

    Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 to verify how a man and woman “become one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:16), comparing marriage to the church (Ephesians 5:31).

    Adam was as historically real as Christ and Moses, having introduced sin into the world, causing death to reign during the historical interval “from Adam to Moses” (Romans 5:14-15).

    Paul identified Adam and Eve by name, noting that Adam was created before the woman was created, and also noting the deception to which Eve succumbed (1 Timothy 2:13-14), which occurred via the “serpent” (2 Corinthians 11:3).

    Paul claimed that God’s deity and attributes have been evident “since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20).

    Paul said that Jesus fulfilled the promises that had been made to “the fathers,” i.e., Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Romans 15:8).

    Paul quoted the promise God made to Abraham concerning Sarah giving birth to Isaac (Romans 9:9), and also mentions Jacob, Esau, and Rebecca by name (vss. 9-10).


Peter, too, endorsed the historicity of Genesis:

    He alluded to the watery mass at Creation from Genesis 1:12,6-7,9 (2 Peter 3:5).

    He regarded the Flood as an actual historical event, mentioning Noah by name and specifying the number of survivors as eight, and the Flood’s extent being global (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6).

    Peter believed in the historical personage of Lot and that God actually turned “the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes” to make them “an example to those who afterward would live ungodly.” The incident also serves the purpose of demonstrating how God “knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations” (2 Peter 2:6-9). If the incident was not historical, it would serve no legitimate parallel purpose.

    Peter also noted the actual, historical relationship sustained by Sarah and Abraham (1 Peter 3:6).


The writer of the Hebrews letter bases his entire argument on the historicity of Genesis and the Old Testament system:

    His quotation of Psalm 102 includes the fact that even as God created the heavens and the Earth, so they will perish (1:10). Both circumstances require literal historicity. 

    Alluding to the fact that God “finished” His creative activities—a direct allusion to Genesis 2:1—he then quotes Genesis 2:2 to call attention to the literal cessation of God’s actions on the seventh day of the week (4:3-4; cf. vs. 10—“as God did from His”).

    The comparison of Christ to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18) in contrast with Aaron demands that both of these figures were actual historical personages (5:1-10; 6:20; 7:1-21).

    God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17 was a literal promise to a literal person (6:13-14).
    God’s creation of the Universe was by His “word” (11:3)—even as the Genesis record indicates that God spoke the created order into existence (“God said…”).

    Hebrews chapter 11 is a veritable “Who’s Who” of historical personalities from Genesis whose historicity is assumed: Cain and Abel (vs. 4), Enoch (vs. 5), Noah (vs. 7), Abraham (vss. 8-10), Sarah (vs. 11-12, who literally produced a multitude of descendents), Isaac (vss. 17-20), Jacob (vss. 20-21), and Joseph (vs. 22).
    Esau sold his birthright for food (12:16).

    Abel’s shed blood is as historically real as Christ’s (12:24).

Other N.T. Writers

The other writers show the same respect for bona fide history portrayed in Genesis.

James refers to Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (2:21).

Jude mentions Cain, Enoch, and Sodom and Gomorrah (vss. 7,11,14).

John notes that Cain murdered his brother because of his own sinful actions (1 John 3:12).

Even the book of Revelation, though highly figurative, nevertheless contains numerous allusions to Genesis that indicate an historical understanding of the book (e.g., 5:5; 10:6; 20:2; 22:2).

To suggest that the book of Genesis is actually a compilation of interesting fables, myths, folklore, popular anecdotes, and stories, rather than actual history, is to suggest that the doctrines of Christianity are rooted in and dependent on fairytales and imaginary stories. Indeed, if the events of Genesis did not historically occur, the New Testament writers—and Jesus Himself—were either in error or flat out liars, since they unquestionably referred to the events of Genesis as being historically true.

Linguistic Proof that Genesis is Literal History

In addition to the New Testament’s inspired treatment of Genesis as an actual account of history, one could also simply examine the literary genre of Genesis. Many in our day insist that Genesis should not be read as literal history because it is written in poetic form and is not a literal description of actual events. But such a claim is, itself, linguistic gobbledygook. Written language, whether from man or God, can be deciphered in terms of its genre. One can identify the author’s use of linguistic elements and extract intended meaning from the words that are used. In other words, though the 50 chapters of Genesis contain figurative language—as does the entire Bible—nevertheless, one can easily distinguish between the literal and the figurative.

Entire volumes have been written on human communication, how human language functions, and how to derive meaning from written language. Many books have been produced that expound the discipline of hermeneutics—the process of interpreting language. These volumes provide self-evident, easily discernible rules and procedures for detecting figurative language. D.R. Dungan’s classic work, Hermeneutics, written in 1888, contains chapters on “Figurative Language,” “The Various Figures of the Bible,” and “Figures of Thought” (pp. 195-369). Clinton Lockhart’s 1901 volume Principles of Interpretation contains chapters on “Figurative Language,” “Poetry,” and “Types” (pp. 156-197,222-228). Christendom has produced many books that demonstrate the means by which biblical language may be understood, including Bernard Ramm’s Hermeneutics and Milton Terry’s 1883 volume Biblical Hermeneutics. Ascertaining whether Genesis and, specifically, the Creation account are “poetic,” “hymn,” or “myth” is not a matter of confusion or uncertainty—except for those who have an agenda and wish to concoct an elaborate smokescreen to avoid the obvious import of God’s Word.

Does Genesis 1 contain any figurative language? Certainly. But not anything that makes the chapter non-literal in its basic import. For example, the term “face” in Genesis 1:2, which is actually plural in the Hebrew (pah-neem—“faces”), is an idiomatic instance of pleonasm, a form of amplificatio, in which more words are used than the grammar requires: “And darkness was upon the faces of the deep.” The noun “deep” (which, itself, is a figurative term for the sea or ocean) is enhanced or emphasized by means of a second, redundant noun “faces.” Instead of simply saying, “darkness was upon the deep,” adding “faces” makes the statement “much more forcible and emphatic” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 406). The use of “saw” in Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25 is the figure of speech known asanthropopatheia in which human attributes are ascribed to God, specifically in this text, human actions (Bullinger, p. 888). The expression in 1:9,10, “Let the dry appear,” is the figure of speech known as antimereia, the exchange of one part of speech for another, in this case, an adjective for a noun. “Dry” in the verses refers to the “land” (see Bullinger, p. 495). Genesis 1:11 uses polyptoton in which the same part of speech is repeated in a different inflection, specifically, the verb “seeding” is repeated by means of its cognate noun “seed”: “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed,” literally, “seeding seed” (see Bullinger, p. 275). In other words, vegetation was created by God in a state of bearing seed, and not vice versa—which militates against the notion of evolution and underscores the instantaneous nature of the Creation. Indeed, this figurative language testifies to the literal nature of the Creation week!

So, yes, Genesis 1 (and perhaps every other chapter in the Bible) contains figurative language, as does our everyday language. But that language is detectable, discernible, and decipherable—and does not necessarily imply that the overall message being conveyed is not to be taken literally. None of the language of Genesis 1 even hints that the events described were imaginary as opposed to being actual historical occurrences. In fact, simply take your Bible and turn to Genesis chapter 1 and notice how many terms are used that have an obvious, undisputable literal import, including “earth,” “darkness,” “Spirit of God,” “waters,” “light,” “day,” “night,” “evening,” “morning,” “first,” “seas,” “grass,” “herb,” “seed,” “fruit,” “tree,” “seasons,” “years,” “stars,” “fowl,” “fish,” “cattle,” etc. Distinguishing between figurative and literal language is not that difficult! [As a side note, Steven Boyd conducted a statistical analysis using logistic regression, in order to ascertain whether Genesis 1:1-2:3 is Hebrew poetry or historical narrative. He concluded: “The biblical creation account clearly is not poetry but instead is a literal description in real time of supernatural events” (2005, p. 168).]

Corroboration by Other Bible Passages

If the events described in the book of Genesis were not intended to be understood as literal history, one would expect the rest of the Bible to give some indication of that fact. Yet, on the contrary, several passages scattered from the Old Testament to the New Testament allude to the events in such a way that their historicity is assumed. Take, for example, specific verses regarding the creation of the Universe by God. The distinct impression is given in Genesis chapter 1 that God orally spoke everything into existence, rather than using some naturalistic, time-laden process. In what is obviously an actual historical setting, reported to us in a literal context of Scripture,

Moses informs the Israelites situated at the base of Mt. Sinai—
    Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work…. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it (Exodus 20:8-11, emp. added).

No Israelite listening to this declaration would have ever conceived the notion that God created everything in the Universe over a period of millions and billions of years. The correlation between the days of Genesis 1 and the six-day work week enjoined upon people under the Law of Moses would have been unmistakable and could have been understood in no other way but literally.

Another example is seen in Psalm 33—which is certainly written in standard Hebrew metrical verse—but poetry that conveys literal truth. Speaking of God’s creative powers, David declared:

    By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deep in storehouses. Let all the earth fear the LORD; Let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him. For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33:6-9, emp. added).

The figurative elements of this poetic passage are seen in the notions of “breath” and “mouth”—physical attributes that would not literally, physically characterize God Who is “spirit” (John 4:24; cf. Luke 24:39). But the oral aspect of God speaking the physical realm into existence is literal, even as God literally and audibly spoke to people throughout history (e.g., Genesis 12:1ff.; 22:12; Exodus 3:4ff.; Matthew 3:17; 17:5).
Still another example is seen in the psalmist’s call for praise by inanimate creation:

    Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels; Praise Him, all His hosts! Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him, all you stars of light! Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, and you waters above the heavens! (Psalm 148:1-4).

Here is an excellent instance of figurative language. Obviously, the Sun, Moon, stars, and waters cannot literally, audibly praise God. Yet, having been created by God, they reflect their Maker. They manifest attributes that demonstrate their divine origin (cf. Psalm 19:1ff.). Hence, the next verse declares: “Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created” (vs. 5). Here is yet another forthright indication that the impression projected by the Genesis account, that God literally spoke the Universe into existence, is an accurate impression, in spite of the fact that this truth is couched in figurative language.

We must ever remember that the Bible is unlike any other book on the planet. It reflects its own divine origin by the attributes that it possesses. It does not divulge its divine message in a sterile vacuum in which a writer expounds lofty ideals, or by means of a listing of ethical “do’s and don’ts.” Rather, by means of the Bible, God conveys His message to mankind in history (cf. Wharton, 1977). We are introduced to the beginning of the Universe, the beginning of the human race, and thereafter we are treated to a sequential, historical narrative that guides us through 4,000 years of human history, climaxing with God’s own personal visit to the Earth. This is all history! And it is clearly intended to be understood literally.


The book of Genesis explains the Creation of the Universe, the corruption of humanity by sin, the catastrophe of the global Flood, and the confusion at Babel. Amazingly, it provides the foundation for anthropology, biology, astronomy, geology, and a host of other disciplines. Critical doctrines that impact all of humanity are rooted in the events described in Genesis, including the necessity of clothing—human modesty—and why we organize our lives in terms of a seven day week. More crucial doctrines that pertain to eternity are also approached early on, including why humans sin, why humans die, and why Jesus would have to die on the cross. The very meaning of human existence is clarified by examining the book of Genesis.
Listen carefully to Charles Darwin’s autobiographical statement regarding the shift that occurred in his thinking that led to his belief in evolution: “I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian” (pp. 85-86). The integrity of the entire Bible is seriously undermined when anyone compromises the literal, historical nature of the book of Genesis, with its critical teaching on origins. Obstinately clinging to evolution, theistic or otherwise, and stubbornly insisting on a relaxed, devalued interpretation of Genesis, can only end in a diluted religion.

May we love God. May we love His Word. May we defend it against all efforts to destroy its integrity and message. May we pore over its contents—as if our lives, the lives of our family, and the lives of those we influence depend upon it. For, indeed, they do.

Barlow, Nora, ed. (1959), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809-1882 with Original Omissions Restored (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World).
Boyd, Stephen (2005), “A Proper Reading of Genesis 1:1-2:3,” in Don DeYoung, Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Bullinger, E.W. (1898), Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1968 reprint).
Bultmann, Rudolf (1958), Jesus Christ and Mythology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons).
“Bush Says Creation ‘Not Incompatible’ With Evolution” (2008), Fox News, December 9,
Cosner, Lita (2010), “The Use of Genesis in the New Testament,” Creation Ministries International,
Dungan, D.R. (1888), Hermeneutics (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).
Jackson, Wayne (1986), “The Teaching of Evolution at Abilene Christian University,” Christian Courier, 21[9]:33-35, January.
Lockhart, Clinton (1915), Principles of Interpretation (Delight, AR: Gospel Light), revised edition.
Morris, Henry, ed. (1987), “Abilene Christian University Sponsors Seminar on Creation and Age of the Earth,” Acts & Facts, 16[5]:4, May.
New England Primer(1805),
Ramm, Bernard, et al. (1987), Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Terry, Milton (no date), Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), reprint.
Thompson, Bert (1986), Is Genesis Myth? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Webster, Noah (1857), The Elementary Spelling Book (New York, NY: American Book Company).
Wharton, Ed (1977), Christianity: A Clear Case of History! (West Monroe, LA: Howard Book House).

Copyright © 2011 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.