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?"
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
I realized you asked razorbak, but I have a few minutes to comment.
There's a lot of research behind the documentary hypothesis but from what I can tell, much of the past 100 years of scholarship is ignored, and a lot of that scholarship demonstrates the documentary hypothesis to have a bad foundation, and then some.
It's been about 12 years since my own study on the subject so I can't remember too much. Some of the names I remember are Wellhausen and Graf (of course). Speiser, Casuto and Claus Westerman come to mind as well. I remember Westerman had reservations about the DH but went along with the others. Those who didn't subscribe to the DH that I read were Kikawada, Harrison and Young all of whom shed a lot of light on the subject with more recent scholarship.
I believe Speiser said in his commentary on Genesis (Anchor) that the point of departure for the DH were the changing names for God. But this point of departure was based on incomplete research. I say incomplete because within a very short time there was a lot more information available that demonstrated the changing names for God weren't a valid point of departure.
As I said earlier in the thread, Genesis 2:4 uses "LORD God" in the same verse. That's Yahweh Elohim, two different names for God supposedly used by different authors... only both names are in the same verse, and that blows the theory right there. Proponents of the DH don't have an answer for Genesis 2:4.
Doublets and parallels, another criteria/criterion? used as a form of source criticism turned out to be a common literary device used at the time.
Some of the DH proponents thought the various names for God were made known at different times/eras, but more recent scholarship demonstrates that to be false.
There is a lot more but I just can't remember at this time and I'm traveling too much to get my notes on the subject.
Also, I remember reading how some folks ran the text of the Pentateuch through some sort of system that checks writing style. From what I remember their results came back stating there were a few authors to the Pentateuch, not just one. Then they (or somebody) ran their own work through the same system and it reported 35 (or something like it) different authors when there were really only two. You have to take these kinds of reports for what they are.
I wish I had more time for this as I find the subject quite fascinating.
The Bible says that Adam was created on the sixth day not the third as you stated.
Yes, I have already had that pointed out to me and corrected it waaaaaay back in the thread.
But thank you for continuing pointing it out again. And again.
Yes, if I am being dull it is usually intentional. However, this is not one of those occasions where any dullness on my part is being exhibited. And, I'm not sure if you can be accurately called "condescending" if you are wrong in what you are saying.
Like I have said, go back to the Hebrew that it was written in. Secondly, it is not clear whether people were created on the fifth day or the sixth day, but if you are attached to the sixth, I'll concede for the sake of discussion.
Now, to get down to the crux of your argument: are you saying that women were not created in God's image, having been made instead from Adam's rib? Is this why this argument is important to you?
But even more important, why is it so necessary for you to see Genesis as a formula and with no deeper meanings? Why would you reject the idea that God would speak in allegory and parable? I just don't understand the attachment to this view of Genesis. When Jesus speaks of a wealthy landowner or a prodigal son, do you believe that there was actually a Mr. W. Landowner or P. Son? Did not Jesus speak this way so that we could glean deeper meanings as our faith matures?
I'm not really interested in trying to reconcile all parts of the Bible, because God had not provided me (or any other mere mortal) with the ability to see the whole picture. And I'm OK with that because I trust what God is doing. So, I'm going to leave you to arguing the finer points of relegating Genesis to some sort of formula. I just don't understand the reason we're even arguing.
Elsie - I would love to give your questions the consideration they deserve, but I don't have time to put them all together to answer. If you will just put them in one reply, I will be happy to try to address them.
If the sun doesn't come up I'll just stay in the bar.
Consider the seven kingdom parables of Matthew 13. Would a casual reader glean any useful meaning from the parables Christ didn't explain? Do you understand what is wrong with the mustard seed, or what the woman hiding the leaven signifies? Have you ever noted the parallelism of the parables to the seven letters in the book of Revelation?
I'm not trying to be overtly insulting to you; I'm really not, but have you ever considered the possibility all this looks so easy and obvious to you is you don't have enough faith to dig any deeper than what will confirm your own prejudice?
Jesus said God rewards those that diligently seek Him, and those that don't faithfully use that which they have been given (read: clues) will have even that taken away from them.
How does your "For instance" support the first sentence?
Wow. Well, you've got me figured out. Nothing more to say.
But, thank you very much for your analysis of my knowledge, motives, and education.
(You might actually want to read the questions that I have asked.)
Do you not see the audacity of this statement? You are not interested in trying to "reconcile" parts of the Bible, and you claim you "trust" in God, but that no mere mortal can see what God wants to communicate to them.
You are just rationalizing your own lack of rigor with an internally contradictory philosophy.
Whoops, I was wrong. There is more.
I apologize for my former flippancy. This is serious and I should have treated it as such.
I'm afraid you lost all of your credibility with me when you claimed to know the condition of my soul, as expressed in your statement of my motives. That is outside the pale.
I will discuss the issues with you, but I will not pretend to know why you say the things you do, what your motives are, where you acquired your knowledge, etc., and I will end any discussion with you when you pretend to know the same things about me.
Spare me your posturing. Did you expect to just pontificate to all the benighted fundamentalists without opposition? Aren't you the one that complained earlier on how the literalists cleared out one reason and logic made an appearance?
If I have mischaracterized your arguments, please demonstrate my error. I've already shown myself reasonable; your turn to show your goodwill and intellectual integrity.
Jesus being born in Bethlehem is vague prophetic rambling?
I don't think so.
Jesus being crucified, no bones broken, speared in the side, lots cast for his clothes and rising again on the third day is vague prophetic ramblings interpreted after the fact?
I don't think so.
Nostradamus's prophecies are not as accurate as the Bible's.
Your lack of faith in God the Creator is in spite of the evidence...not because the evidence is lacking.
You are very big on telling others what they can not know. Your lack of confidence in the explanatory powers of induction and deduction does not in the least way touch on their utility and validity.
But I see now you are trying to extricate yourself from the discussion and save face at the same time.
That's a pity, and a waste.
"...He's also an idiot"
Wow. Powerful logic. I'm convinced.
We need you on our debate team.
Just so anyone knows, the United Churches of Christ are among the most theologically liberal of all denominations that still call themselves "Christian" and are practially Unitarian in theology....they have little or no understanding or acceptance of the authority of scripture.
Long before the Episcopaleans ordained an openly perverted leader, the UCC ordained and blessed practicioners of sodomy.
Anything any minister says about scripture from this thoroughly apostate denomination is greatly suspect.
We need you on our debate team.
Gee, I'm not sure if I should take this literally, or figuratively. Tell me oh great logician....which is it and why.
Additionally, tell me why I should assume identity and continuity in the concepts.
Extremely liberal group. Why would Freerepublic be pushing someone from a liberal group?
For the most part both groups are recognized as being very unorthodox when it comes to believing the Bible.
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.