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?"
4:15 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.
Curious thing for Cain to say...who is "every one" when there was no one else on the Earth?
God created the Earth the Universe and everything, populated it, and rested on the seventh day. Then, starting on the eight day He created Eden, a garden where the tree of life would thrive, and put Adam and Eve in that garden.
Lilith and her sisters.
Try again.
Do we know the age of Cain when he offered the non-blood sacrifice? Was he 30 or 100 (Adam was 130 when Seth was born)? How many other children had Adam and Eve had when he slew Abel? We know that God provided Seth shortly after the death of Abel, but was he the third child of Adam and Eve; or does the Bible highlight him because Noah was directly in his line?
Gen 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
Assuming that Cain and Abel were over thirty when they began their priest-like activities of sacrifice they may have had more than thirty siblings and hundreds of nieces and nephews begating according to the command of God(possibly Adam and Eve were created, matured to the age of thirty consistent with eldership in the Jewish Faith).
God created the Earth the Universe and everything, populated it, and rested on the seventh day. Then, starting on the eight day He created Eden, a garden where the tree of life would thrive, and put Adam and Eve in that garden.
As I have pointed out to SuzyQue, I like to take my cues from Jesus when he united Genesis Chapter 1 & 2 [Gen 1:27 & Gen 2:24 in Mark 10:6-8].
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.
Mark 10:6-8
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.
Accordingly, on day six God created Adam, then He created the Garden of Eden where He then placed Adam, then Adam named the animals which prompted God to see animals were not suitable companions for a man, leading to the creation of Eve within the Garden of Eden, after which the serpent deceives Eve in Genesis Chapter 3.
Reread Genesis Chapter 2, for it is all straightforwardly spelled out for you. No need to make it become something contrary to what it says.
According to Genesis, one.
I don't understand the notion of believing in the need to take the Bible literally when it suits one argument, and then ask for assupmtions to be made against what the Bible specifically does not say.
"And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:"
Cain, Abel, Seth, THEN daughters.
So who did Cain marry, if he married and had children BEFORE his sisters were born?
Yes, This passgae says Adam and Eve had more children after the birth of Seth.
I don't see the passage where it says there were no other children, besides Cain and Abel, before Seth. If I took your view of this verse, Adam hadn't begat anyone prior to Seth, which we know is incorrect.
Why is it that you have to ask me to me to assume things in an attempt at convincing me that The Bible is the literal text of things that happened at the beginning of time?
Genesis makes no mention of sisters for Cain to marry before Seth was born.
Believers in absolute Biblical creation argue that lacking proof of a transitional species to satisfy their requirements of such a thing (and since by their very nature they deny the possibility of such a thing existing, no proof will ever rise to the level of proof to them), then evolution is incorrect and Creation must be the truth.
But in order to prove the argument that Creation is textually as described in Genesis, they ask for things to be assumed without a shred of evidence to support the assumption.
I see a listing of the children, and I see things set in a chronological order, that chronological order does not make mention of daughters until after Seth was born.
You demand that the chronological order of Creation be followed textually, right up until the moment when the chronological order, followed textually, proves you wrong, at which point, you immediately demand that the chronological order NOT be followed textually.
You need to provide proof that something happened, not demand that I prove that something DIDN'T happen.
Let's play your game...I say that Jesus made mention of the Designated Hitter rule during the Sermon in the Mound, but it was not included in the Biblical depiction, and as proof, I offer the fact that the Bible does not say that He didn't.
You realize that many people are not mentioned in the Bible. One thing we do know is that the Bible doesn't say "There were no other siblings to Cain and Abel until Seth was born".
Whenever we speculate at something not revealed, it is incumbent upon us to use disclaimers. *Assuming*, *possibly* and words of this type inform the reader that there isn't direct evidence for the following idea, but the idea can still be based on a Biblical concepts elsewhere in the Scriptures.
It is my hope to provide evidence from the text to show you that your ideas contradict the available passages. In this way you may be willing to reconsider what you tell others that the Bible says on these issues.
Here is what we know: Jesus believed they were the same Adam and Eve in Genesis Chapter 1 & 2.
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.
Mark 10:6-8
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.
Just as it doesn't mention Adam going potty in the chronology (but the text doesn't exclude his need to go potty), it doesn't mention other children, but doesn't exclude that there were other children.
You demand that the chronological order of Creation be followed textually, right up until the moment when the chronological order, followed textually, proves you wrong, at which point, you immediately demand that the chronological order NOT be followed textually.
The difference is that assuming Adam and Eve had other children between Abel and Seth does not cause me to contradict scripture. If you can show me where I have contradicted scripture, I will be happy to reexamine my understanding.
Your ideas contradict the entire Chapter 2 of Genesis.
What you are doing is justifying your beliefs by assuming things that are not written, because that's the only way to justify your belief.
Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
But they're so "dedicated to God" that they won't have pianos or organs in their churches.
http://www.reasons.org (Old Earth Creationism)
The Bible by the way, also does not say "there is no evolution."
So, if you can freely assume things to bolster your argument based on the fact that the Bible does not tell you that they did not happen, I can too.
Thus, and in following your own line of logic, I can freely say that because the Bible does not deny the theory of evolution, then evolution happened.
Mindless repetition of Biblical quotes as proof that the Biblical account of Genesis is true...how unique.
It could be you're incorrectly comparing our modern literary styles with ancient literary styles. I had some of the same concerns you have until I studied the subject in depth.
What we see in the first two chapters of Genesis makes sense to Egyptologists because they're familar with the common use of doublets and parallels in ancient texts.
So, God's words are to be interpreted in accordance with ancient Egyptian writing techniques, but we are to take the words of these ancient Egyptians literally as being the exact depiction of Genesis?
The JEPD theory has been totally debunked for years. It was crap when you wrote your paper and its still crap.
"How is it that a godless atheist understands Christianity better than most of the Christians I know?"
Just hmmmmm, depends on the meaning of that word 'understands', cause if they do understand, Christ had more than a few words to say to and about those who 'understand' and reject Him.
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.