One of the main troubles regarding the Genesis story (and many other theological issues) is the idea of literal vs. metaphor. Many Christians believe the Genesis story to be metaphorical - symbolic of God’s [power, goodness, etc].
Indeed, the use of symbolism and poetic imagery is no foreigner to the Bible. Non-Christians also consider the Bible to be an epic of religious mythology, much like every other false religion. That’s the thing though; the whole story of the Bible is entirely poetic by God’s design while also being true.
Both Tolkein and C.S. Lewis are quoted to say that the Gospel is the “true myth.”
The best way to explain why this is true is through language and how we perceive metaphor/symbolism.
Dr. Collender in App. C of his textbook, A Rhetoric of Love II, says this; “Language philosophers realized something crucial about a metaphor’s meaning. It occurs at the sentence level, not at the level of individual words. This insight has a profound impact on how we interpret metaphors. It shows us we must’ve force language into a false dichotomy of categories. Language isn’t either literal or figurative; it’s both.”
Dr. Collender goes on to say that metaphors can be spoken about in terms of true or false. An example:
“An ion channel is a sound metaphor that describes the organelle that regulates a cell’s ion levels. The normal use of the word ‘channel’ refers to a water path that cuts through a land mass to connect two bodies of water. Although no water is involved in an ‘ion channel,’ it describes what the organelle is and does. Thus, ‘ion channel’ reveals reality: it’s a metaphor that’s true.”
Someone who would have understood this theory well is C.S. Lewis; he often described the Gospel as “the true Myth.” In True Myth [full text name], the preface sets up a dichotomy between Lewis’s and Joseph Campbell’s interpretation of “myth.”
“Joseph Campbell understood Christianity as comprised of mythical themes, similar to those in other myths, religious and secular. Admitting that certain portions of the Biblical record as symbolic, as stories in which the reader can find life-lessons for today. Campbell believed that these life-lessons are the heart of Christianity and that taking the theological or miraculous elements literally not only undermines Christianity’s credibility, but results in sectarianism and a misunderstanding of the universal themes held common by all humanity.”
As for Lewis, “[He] defined Christianity as a relationship between the personal Creator and His creation mediated through faith in His son, Jesus Christ. As such, Lewis was a supernaturalist who took the theological and miraculous literally. Although Lewis understood how one could see symbolism and life-lessons in miraculous events, he believed [they happened literally].”
True Myth goes on to cite other philosophers with even more different definitions of “myth,” which includes “the term connotes something untrue or unbelievable,” or “a myth refers to fictional and untrue tale, so I have come to prefer the term story, since the status of a story is clearly left open, or “myth is not defined by the object of its message, but by the way in which it utters this message: there are formal limits to myth, there are no ‘substantial’ ones. Everything, then, can be a myth? Yes, I believe this, for the universe is fertile in suggestions.”
There is no end to the scholars who have tried to define myth and agree yet do not agree with every peer all at the same time.
In a private meeting with Dr. Collender, I asked him how do I solve the problem of Free Will and Predestination? I still don’t have the full answer but the answer the Dr. gave me struck me and seems to apply to most controversial problems. The figures present within the Bible were not confused about nearly the amount of subjects that modern Christians twist themselves about today.
In light of the topic of this Thesis, many would say those figures were simply ignorant of modern science. They, and the words that came from their pens which we now read, were not yet learned of our advanced ways.
To that, I say to you, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” (1st Cor. 14:36)
The mistake begins when we think of metaphors, or symbolism, as false or “unreality.” That is the automatic assumption we make, especially those who claim that the Creation story is just a myth. This mistake spans hundreds of years, not just modern times, since Aristotle and Plato were the first ones to define metaphor with this dichotomy.
We will get into the science that is the subject of much controversy later but for now, I wish to explain further how something can be symbolic but true at the same time. In explaining this, I will have explained why it is possible for the Creation story to be both be a myth full of lessons and poetic symbolism but true at the same time.
In Rhetoric of Love II, Dr. Collender gives us a handy tool for deciphering how a metaphor can be true. Chapter 26 explains to readers how metaphors paint pictures that are not unlike Gestalt paintings. Metaphors can be describing the same thing, such as the ocean, as “wine-dark” or a “whale road” and completely transform the ocean into something new. Yet, it is the same ocean.
Earlier, when I said that words don’t have meanings but sentences do is crucial to understanding metaphor. We can also understand metaphor completely logically.
Aristotle made a tool which we will call “The Square of Opposition.” He attached values to each corner of the square and identified/labeled the relationships between all of them. Here are the four kinds of proposition:
A - All S is P.
E - No S is P.
I - Some S is P.
O - Some S is not P.
I don’t wish for this to become complicated but bear with me. This square sets up a very clear dichotomy between all the statements and all the statements relate to each other in some way in regards to truth. For example, if “All S is P” is true, then “Some S is not P” can’t be true. This tool has been one of the foundations of formal logic; Dr. Collender, however, has something to add. A whole new square.
He calls it the “Square of Metaphor.” Aristotle’s Square does not leave much room for defining the truth of metaphors since, in order for it to work, those statements must be taken literally.
Consider the Square of Metaphor to be like a shadow - a whole new square that deals with metaphors individually and corresponds to the reality present in the Square of Opposition. Here’s an example from the textbook, describing a scenario;
There are two characters in debate. Rhonda has been dating a man named Johnny and her best friend, Darla, is trying to convince Rhonda that he is not a good person.
“Johnny is a wolf,” Darla says.
Rhonda takes offense. “Johnny is not a wolf! He’s the kindest man I’ve ever met.”
“He’s trying to get close enough to move in for the kill.”
Darla is making a statement that she believes to be true but it’s expressed as a metaphor. How would you apply the Square of Opposition to this? Since language is not purely literal, Darla’s words having meaning. Otherwise, she is speaking nonsense or Johnny is a furry, four-legged canine.
However, Rhonda takes offense, because she knows what Darla means. What is the metaphor, “Johnny is a wolf,” doing?
The way that metaphors work is by “transferring the qualities of a sentence’s predicate term onto it’s subject term. The transfer re-describes the sentence’s subject term in a surprising way. This process prompts the imagination to see the subject term differently. The Square of Metaphor helps us look at the transference to see how the new meaning came to be.” Here is what the metaphor would look like as our Square of Opposition and it’s shadow.
A - All/all of Johnny is a wolf. Everything about Johnny is brutish and dangerous.
E - No/none of Johnny is a wolf. He does not howl at the moon or have a coat of fur.
I - Some of Johnny is a wolf. If this weren’t true then Darla’s A statement would be pointless.
O - Some of Johnny is not a wolf. Specifically, all the qualities that make Johnny a functional human being.
Can you point out the difference between the two Squares? All statements on the Square of Metaphor are true. According to formal logic, this should be impossible. Yet, this is how language functions.
Now that we have this understanding, we can apply this to the Bible. Take John 10:9, where Jesus says, “I am the door.” Let us put this on the Square.
A - All of Jesus is a door. Jesus’ entire nature is to be the median between humans and God.
E - None of Jesus is a door. Jesus is not a plank of wood in reality.
I - Some of Jesus is a door. If “all” is true, then “some” is true.
O - Some of Jesus is not a door. Jesus also serves other functions, such as setting examples for how to be “Christ-like.”
---
Having learned the true nature of metaphor, and thus how whole stories filled with metaphorical sentences relate to truth, we can continue on knowing that a symbolic story, full of poetic themes and lessons to learn from, can also be a true story.