WHICH CREATION STORY?

Sullivan County Tenn ^ | Unknown | Rev. James W. Watkins

[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?"

[Luis Gonzalez]

"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."

You contradict your interpretation of scripture.

You believe in the exact events depicted in Genesis, but the only way to support your argument is to make unfounded, free assumptions of the existence of events not depicted in Genesis.

In other words, your argument has boiled down to "believe what The Bible says about Genesis; it's all true and supported by what The Bible doesn't say in Genesis."

Ludicrous.

[Just mythoughts]

The flesh beings created on the sixth day are not the same as created on the day following the 7th.

Peter says that a 'day' with the Lord is as a thousand years, so we have an elapse of time from the 6th day until the Adam and Eve were formed.

Further after the 7th day of rest there we are told Gen2:4 "These are THE GENERATIONS ....... " that word generations = family history that is not recorded in the Bible. Yet in 2:5 ....... there was not a man to till the ground.

Note in Genesis 1 on the 6th day creation we are told that creation was given 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. NO farmers listed in this group.

[bondserv]

Mindless repetition of Biblical quotes as proof that the Biblical account of Genesis is true...how unique.

My intent was not to upset you. Forgive me. My intent was to expose people to the Biblical account so they could reach their own conclusions.

Anyone interested in these things, please do not take my opinion or Luis' opinion of these things. Examine the data and follow it where it leads. God is reasonable, and made no mistakes when providing His message to us.

[bondserv]

Further after the 7th day of rest there we are told Gen2:4 "These are THE GENERATIONS ....... " that word generations = family history that is not recorded in the Bible. Yet in 2:5 ....... there was not a man to till the ground.

If you post the whole verse we see a completely different context.

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,

Jesus Christ carries a lot of weight on this topic in my judgment. You will notice that Jesus understood the passage in Genesis Chapter 1 was speaking about the same people as those being spoken of in Genesis Chapter 2. Also it makes it consistant with the rest of scripture.

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.

You will notice the precision the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write. It doesn't just say, "the first man", it says "the first man Adam", just as we would expect in that it is consistent with Jesus Christ's statement.

1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

Jesus Christ [last Adam] recaptured the spiritual life that Adam forsook.

[Just mythoughts]

None of what you provide here changes the fact that creation is described to have taken place on two different days.

Now if you claim that alll peoples came from only two flesh beings then you are calling for an accelerated form of evolution as DNA shows very well it is not possible for all peoples seen here today to have come from only two flesh beings. Nor does the Bible indicate such a miracle.

[scripter]

To better understand any ancient text, we must first understand the language and literary devices used at the time. Otherwise we risk mistranslation and misinterpretation. Depending on context and how much we understand literary devices used, we can better make decisions as to whether the passage is literal or figurative.

[bondserv]

Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Acts 17:26 From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand which should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries.

The scripturtal evidence is quite extensive. The Holy Spirit, via Paul, warned us against trusting in things that man has no clear understanding of.

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

[LauraleeBraswell]

I wrote that paper a few months ago.Who said it was debunked?

[MEGoody]

However, Genesis contains two distinctly different creation accounts.

Oh, for crying out loud. This guy obviously has never been a teacher. Genesis is the first example of a teaching method still used today. (Give an overview, then focus in on the primary subject matter.)

He's also obviously never been a Reverend.

[Just mythoughts]

"Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living."

Who is IT the Bible says gives life?

"Acts 17:26 From one man he created all the nations throughout the whole earth. He decided beforehand which should rise and fall, and he determined their boundaries."

What as opposed to Acts 17:24 God That made the world and all things therein, seeing that He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

25 Neither is worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

26 And hath made of one man all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

So what is the subject again, after all he, Paul was on Mars' hill, and was talking to the men of Athens and their superstitious beliefs, "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD".

"Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."


Now whose tradition is it that only two flesh beings are described as being created in the Book of Genesis. I can read Genesis and there are two different days of man in the flesh described being formed.

[MEGoody]

None of what you provide here changes the fact that creation is described to have taken place on two different days.

Uh, actually, scripture says God did it in 6 days.

[wallcrawlr]

I have no clue why this is in the News forum and not Religion.
Interesting discussion over the often confused "2" creation stories in Genesis.

Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info

[Just mythoughts]

No it does not. There is a difference in what is described and there is a difference in the words 'man' and Adam. The Bible is the story of The Adam, his generations and the other peoples he and his generations came into contact with leading to the birth of Christ.

All Scripture points to Christ as He is the life giver.

[trisham]

The sun is still going come up tomorrow morning, isn't it? Isn't it?

************

Arrgghh. You had to bring that up, did you? Now it's stuck in my head.

The sun'll come out

Tomorrow

Bet your bottom dollar

That tomorrow

There'll be sun!

Just thinkin' about

Tomorrow

Clears away the cobwebs,

And the sorrow

'Til there's none!

When I'm stuck a day

That's gray,

And lonely,

I just stick out my chin

And Grin,

And Say,

Oh!

The sun'll come out

Tomorrow

So ya gotta hang on

'Til tomorrow

Come what may

Tomorrow! Tomorrow!

I love ya Tomorrow!

You're always

A day

A way!

[pby]

And why should we believe that the FSM created the universe and everything in it?

Did the FSM produce inspired writings like God did with the Bible?

A Bible that is supported by external evidences such as archeology, manuscripts and fulfilled prophecy.

Did the FSM have eye-witnesses that died preaching about the FSM?

Are you willing to die for your faith in the FSM?

I am not aware of any writings about, or by, the FSM that produces such external evidences.

Thus, comparitively, belief in the FSM would seem especially foolish.

[DannyTN]

"What difference does it make?"

It makes a BIG difference.

If Genesis is not the authoritative Word of God, then the tests determining who is and who is not a real prophet of God contained in Genesis are suspect. And if the test of a prophet is suspect then the selection of prophets in the Jewish canon is also suspect. And if the prophets are suspect, then the prophecies of a messiah are suspect. And if the prophecies are suspect then the messiah Himself is suspect. He is doubly suspect because He quoted the works of Moses as authoritative and referred to creation.

For example when Mohammed proclaimed himself to be a prophet the Jews and Christians laughed at him because he clearly failed the test of a prophet that Moses laid down.

In short, if Genesis cannot be relied on, then we are free to pick and choose from all scripture as we wish or disregard it entirely. Everything we know about God and right verses wrong is subject to our scrutiny and our whim.

There are not two incompatible creation stories. One is more detailed and an elaboration of the other.

Genesis 1 & 2 Complementary not contradictory

[metmom]

Hardly ramblings. You have a pretty good grasp of what Christianity is and condensed it very succinctly in this and your previous posts on this thread. In light of your understanding of the subject, I can't help but wonder how you can remain an atheist. (As your tagline indicates) And I don't mean that in a disparaging or critical way; it's just that you've put this all into words better than some Christians I know could have.

[WKB]

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?

Is this the KJV vs the niv Creation controversy? :>)

[DannyTN]

"The sun is still going come up tomorrow morning, isn't it? Isn't it?"

Yes and No. The sun will come up tomorrow and for at least a thousand years more. Then there will come a day when the sun and the earth and all their elements melt. They will be completely destroyed by fire. And it will then be replaced bye a new sun and a new earth.

But what you don't know, is will the sun come up tomorrow for you? For all you know it might not. And then you will be standing before a perfect holy God. A God who knows no sin. A God of justice who long ago declared that the penalty for sin would be death.

So if the sun doesn't come up for you tomorrow, what will your defense be?

1. That you have no sin?
2. That you did some extra good to make up for your sin? Assuming of course that some good existed that wasn't your duty to do?
3. That you were confused and didn't know right from wrong? Perhaps God gave you a faulty conscience?
4. That it's God's fault for making you? I'm sure God can think of a remedy for that one.
5. That you are guilty, but that someone else, someone who was blameless, and owed no debt of their own, suffered your penalty for you so that you wouldn't have to?

#3 is the only answer that works. And that blameless one was God himself in the form of Jesus.

[DannyTN]

Genesis 1 & 2..Complementary not contradictory