Posted on 01/22/2006 8:12:41 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Creationists call us to believe the Biblical creation story as a literal account of historical events. However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts. Which creation story are they calling us to "literally" believe?
For generations, serious students of Scripture have noted stark divisions and variations in the age of the Hebrew, its style and language within Genesis. As we have it now, Genesis is actually a composite of three written primary sources, each with its own character, favorite words and distinctly different names for God. Such differences all but evaporate when translated into English, but they are clear in the ancient Hebrew text.
The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity. This fully developed story explains creation in terms of the ancient near eastern world view of its time. A watery chaos is divided by the dome (firmament) of the sky. The waters under the dome are gathered and land appears. Lights are affixed in the dome. All living things are created. The story pictures God building the cosmos as a supporting ecosystem for humanity. Finally, humanity, both male and female, is created, and God rests.
The second Creation story, Genesis 2:4b to 2:25, found its written form several centuries before the Genesis. 1:1 story. This text is a less developed and much older story. It was probably passed down for generations around the camp fires of desert dwellers before being written. It begins by describing a desert landscape, no plants or herbs, no rain; only a mist arises out of the earth. Then the Lord God forms man of the dust of the ground, creates an oasis-like Garden of Eden to support the "man whom he had formed." In this story, God creates animal life while trying to provide the man "a helper fit for him." None being found, God takes a rib from the man's side and creates the first woman. These two creation stories clearly arise out of different histories and reflect different concerns with different sequences of events. Can they either or both be literal history? Obviously not.
Many serious students of Scripture consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-literal, pre-history type literature, with Abram in Genesis. 12:1 being the first literal historical figure in the Bible. This understanding of Genesis causes an uproar in some quarters. In most church communities, little of this textual study has filtered down to the pew. But, in their professional training, vast numbers of clergy have been exposed to this type of literary scriptural analysis.
In my over 28 years as a pastor, I have encountered many people who are unnecessarily conflicted because they have been made to believe that, to be faithfully religious, one must take a literal view of the Genesis creation accounts. Faced with their scientific understandings going one direction and their spiritual search another, many have felt compelled to give up their spiritual search altogether. This all too common reaction is an unnecessary shame!
So, the next time someone asks you if you believe the Biblical story of creation, just remember the correct reply: "To which Biblical creation story do you refer?"
God wants to reveal his plan for salvation to us. He doesn't care whether or not the dates or times are always accurate or whether or not it reveals historical truth. The two Creation stories along with the rest of Genesis 1-11 are clearly allegorical, espeicaly Genesis 1 as well as the story of Noah's Ark which are polemics against Babylonian myths.
You are correct, there are no inaccuracies in the Bible. The stated inaccuracies are points made by people that do not know the story nor has read the Bible. The Bible is completely accurate in all it's predictions as it is accurate as even today. So, don't worry......you are correct. Oh, by the way, even the details are there.....extreme details.
God certainly wouldn't go into detailed metaphysics, geology, biology or chemistry to explain to the hunter-gatherer nomad how He created all that exists.
Man was not created on the third day as you added in parenthesis above. Notice verse 23 indicates the fifth day's end, and in verse 31 it indicates man was created on the sixth day. Chapter 2 - beginning in verse 4 - of Genesis focuses in on the sixth day and gives more details than Chapter 1.
Gen 1:23-31
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
"It says so in The Bible, I believe that's the truth, and I am free to believe that, but don't you dare believe otherwise, because it contradicts what I believe in, and you are not alowed to believe in something other than what I believe in."
That's the basic jist of the entire Creation vs. evolution argument.
Don't you just love it when people showcase their Christianity?
There's a reason why the word "faith" is associated with religious beliefs, and that reason is that you are asked to believe things which you don't KNOW to be facts.
You believe that what he believes is untrue...you don't know, anymore than anyone else KNOWS.
If Adam and Eve (by inference) are clearly allegorical, then so too is the fall..and salvation becomes a meaningless concept. You can't have one without the other, but if believing this logical contradiction helps you sleep better at night, then hey, go for it, enjoy it while you can. There is no better sleep than a fool and his dreams.
Order of creation
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good."
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib)
So if we were to take your argument to the logical conclusion, all of Jesus' parables must not reveal pertinent truths either.
Just because two people named Adam and Eve didn't exist doesn't make the theological/ moral basis of their story any less true. The idea behind Adam and Eve is that we, as humans, are imperfect and are going to sin because of that imperfection. I don't need Adam and Eve to be real people in order to understand that.
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them"
Genesis II...God creates Eden, Adam, and Eve.
Seems rather clear to me.
It also answers the question of just who Cain married.
OK, so what does that have to do with the original point?
You've not only hijacked my argument, but you've hijacked logic as well, and neither of us are all too pleased.
Just because two people named Adam and Eve didn't exist doesn't make the theological/ moral basis of their story any less true. The idea behind Adam and Eve is that we, as humans, are imperfect and are going to sin because of that imperfection. I don't need Adam and Eve to be real people in order to understand that.
I do not doubt you have no need for these things to be real and true, just as Reverend Watkins has no need for the Bible to be accurate and consistent. But why stop at Adam and Eve, or even Noah. Why does Christ have to be real if all that matters is that the message guide your needs.
Just so long as everyone is excellent to each other.
Hell, all we really need is Bill and Ted
LoL.. yeah names like Rebekah.. which means transliterated..
"a noose about the neck"... as she was..
Such a lovely name with such a negative meaning..
LOLOL! When I put the meaning of my first name and middle name together it is quite humorous, too.
The title of the thread is "Which Creation Story?"
Chapter 1 and 2 make perfect sense when read in a straightforward way. Chapter 2, beginning in verse 5 (verse 4 is a shift in gears letting us know the following will be zooming in on Adam), is a closer look at the events that took place on Day 6. Chapter 1 only gives a cursory view of day 6.
Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Here we have God begin to focus on the events of day six. First He causes rain to germinate and begin the growth of the seeds He planted (verse five shows us that God Himself planted the seeds on day three for there were no men yet to have done the work). He did not germinate the seeds until day six. There were no men prior to day six.
Gen 2:5-6
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and [there was] not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Then God formed Adam before He created Eden. Before verse 7 - which is continuing with the details of day 6 - God lets us know that there was no living souls.
Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Then God created the Garden of Eden, and prepared it for Adam to be placed into.
Gen 2:8-9
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
After completing the creation of the Garden of Eden, God places Adam into it. What is significant is that Adam was created before Eden, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, earlier on day six. At this point in day six Eve has not yet been made from the side of Adam. Also notice that Adam was warned at this point regarding the prohibition of eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve had to learn about the prohibition from Adam.
Gen 2:15-17
15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Now God creates creatures from the ground before Adam in order for him to name them. Notice that the fowl in Chapter 2 are created out of the ground unlike the ones in Chapter 1 which were brought forth from the water. This passage is the one that throws people because they do not realize that God had already created animals on previous days and prior to the creation of the garden on day six, and that the animals in the following verses were made specifically after the garden was made for Adam to name. Again, no Eve at this point.
Gen 2:19-20
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Now Eve is created. All of this from Chapter 2 verse 5 through verse 25 happens on day six.
Gen 2:21-25
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Most creationists believe God had Adam name only the kinds of animals, not every variety within the kind. This would have only taken him very little time. For example all the dogs, wolves, fox... had one name. Possibly, some of the variations we see today came about from a singular animal of the kind. So the original wolf developed into coyotes, foxes and dogs etc.
This presents an interesting dichotomy for two reasons.
First, the entire history of scientific inquiry is characterized by the overwhelming body of "experts" whose ideas were superseded by a minority school that turned out to be correct. Second, because ID theorists are regularly criticized for "appealing to incredulity" as an argument.
As I final note, I'm sure I don't have to quote Planck's Dictum to you, but if there were ever a case where it looks to be operative...this is it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.