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?"
Any religious tradition that denies the deity of Jesus Christ is, by definition, not Christian. The animosity for those particular traditions comes from the attempt to offer themselves as Christian, but deny that defining characteristic.
Think "counterfeit."
"You've not only hijacked my argument, but you've hijacked logic as well, and neither of us are all too pleased."
It must feel real great that you can just dismiss anyone you disagree with as stupid, but let's try this again. Since Adam and Eve, if they didn't really exist, have nothing to teach if I'm to following your logic correctly, then Jesus' parables, since they're clearly stories, must also have nothing to tell us.
"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."
The Bible is spiritual accurate and consistent, but not historical or scientifical accurate or consistent. In fact, like all literature, each book reflects the personal and regional biases of the writer as well as what was occuring in the world around them. Many of the Genesis myths clearly parallel Babylonian stories because they were written by the Israelites' priestly class while they were in Exile. Therefore, they parallel and comment on Babylonian myths.
"Just so long as everyone is excellent to each other."
That's the whole idea behind religion last time I checked... the Golden Rule, the Good Samaritan, etc. Perhaps if everyone tried that, instead of all upset because the Bible isn't the 100% literal truth, then the world would be a happier place.
"How is it that a godless atheist understands Christianity better than most of the Christians I know?
"
I'm not sure I do. However, I've been studying the religions of the world for 40 years. You do learn a bit in that time.
Based on the Gospels, it's pretty clear that Jesus meant for all to be redeemed by his death. All he required was belief.
Of course, he expected his believers to follow the example he set on how to live, but knew that was impossible for humans.
That's the story I get from the Gospels.
Genesis 1 gives a overall account of the 7 days of creation. Genesis 2 gives a detailed account of day 6. so where exactly are the two different accounts?
placemark
It's amazing, people point to the letter of the Bible when it supports their point and claim that what it says is what it is...until the moment when making assumptions best supports their argument, then at that point we are to assume what it doesn't say.
Genesis II says nothing about it being further clarification of Genesis I, and reads as a chronological continuation of God's work after His day of rest.
You have two points here:
Point 1:. Genesis 1 has both male and female humans created at the same time. Genesis 2 has Adam created, and then Eve.
Here's the relevant passages from Genesis:
Gen 1:26 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. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
I'm not sure how anyone can read this and make the claim that you do, especially given the length of text and emphasis on Adam.
Additionally, notice that whenever Adam (man, male) is mentioned in relation to creation, it is always correlated with a creation in God's image. This is not the case for any reference to Eve (woman, female) where it is noted that she is simply created.
This distinction is a direct indication that they are separate events.
Point 2: Genesis 1 places the creation of animals before humans. Genesis 2 has Adam created, and then the animals,..
Genesis 2 isn't supposed to be a chronology of creation. You're reading too much into the references.
God isn't iterating in Gen 2:19, he is reiterating, And he's doing it for a reason: to show that these things are different from Adam. In other words, the distinction here is not one of chronology, but category, which we clearly see when we refer back to the original passage in Genesis 1:25:
"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..."
The intent of this passage in context of the chapter is to show kind, or species, which is a very important point since the intent of God is to make a help meet, or companion for Adam, which is clear from Genesis 2:18:
"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him."
Notice also that God describes that which he is about to make, or the companion, in the singular, which is at odds with the plurality of creations as mentioned in Genesis 2:19:
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..."(emphasis mine)
It is therefore at odds with the notion that this is an instance of creation correlated to the intent in Genesis 2:18
Additionally, here's a link to a site that goes into detail, which oddly enough, was previously posted by LiteKeeper. Look, the Bible isn't an easy read, I'll grant you that, but neither are the five papers of Einstein's Thesis of Relativity.
You take from it, what you put into it, and if your intent is just to glance through it looking for superficial errors and contradictions, there's no doubt you'll find what you're looking for....as many people have.
If you approach it however with the sincere desire to understand it, then you may find, as I have, that it is a very interesting read...more interesting, than you might imagine.
"...but let's try this again. Since Adam and Eve, if they didn't really exist, have nothing to teach if I'm to following your logic correctly..."
Well, you're not...
You may be a godless atheist, my FRiend, but you're closer to Truth than many who claim to be followers of Christ.
BS - I think we've taken this about as far as we can. There are TWO stories. One where man and woman are created together, and then a later story with Adam's rib being used to create Eve, who had already been created earlier according to Chapter 1.
"Adam" means: from ''adam' (119); ruddy i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):--X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low degree), person. "
When we can't agree on the meaning of "one" or "two" we're just too far apart to have a real discussion.
But, I do appreciate that you did respond to my earlier post.
If by together, you mean simultaneously, then the conditions for Eve's creation would be the same as that of Adam, and specifically, she would also have been created in God's image directly, rather than by proxy.
Show me one single passage from the Bible where the phrase in God's/his image is used in direct relation to Eve's creation.
Uh, OK, I'll play: "So God created4 man in his [own] image, in the image of God created1 he him; male and female created1 he them."
By the way, remember that this was not done in English. You might also want to look at the original Hebrew for a further understanding of the meaning.
I know one church in Chicago is very, very political. I saw a "sermon" one night and the speaker was saying that everyone should vote for Kerry. I turned him off after I wrote him a not asking why he was allowed to be so political when conservatives were not. Never heard from him.
Just to make sure I understood you - are you suggesting that women are not created in God's image? Just men are?
If I misunderstood, I apologize immediately.
You are arguing with Jesus Christ, not me.
Jesus Christ quoted from verses in Genesis Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 when speaking about the marriage of Adam and Eve, and divorce in the Mark 10, thus unifying the accounts in Genesis Chapter 1 & 2. You will notice Adam and Eve become one flesh before Satan deceives Eve in Genesis Chapter 3, reinforcing the proper sequence.
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Mark 10:4-9
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put [her] away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.[Gen 1:27]
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: [Gen 2:24] so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Well, look it...if you're not interested in a serious discussion which, judging from your response, you're not...then I'm just not interested. Period.
People from those 2 groups use to come here all the time. One day when I was really fed up with being interrupted from my chores, I got the bright idea of telling them where I went to church, a SBC, and they have not returned. Guess they knew better than to waste their time with me.
You didn't answer my question.
No, I'm pretty sure you're not Jesus.
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.