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?"
The Catholic church does not (in many cases) believe the Bible, and they make no apology for following the traditions of men rather than Scripture.
Just because they are "big" doesn't make that belief correct.
Also, most people who are Catholic are born into the religion, they do not convert to it or choose it.
John 5:46 For had ye believed Moses,
ye would have believed me:
for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings,
how shall ye believe my words?
So which version is right?
John 1:1
¶In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him;
and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
John 5:46
For had ye believed Moses,
ye would have believed me:
for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings,
how shall ye believe my words?
Matthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate:
for wide is the gate,
and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate,
and narrow is the way,
which leadeth unto life,
and few there be that find it.
The proof that Creation is not an allegory is found here:
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,
and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression,
who is the figure of him that was to come.
There was no death upon Earth until Adam sinned.
Very good! Who says Creationists can't learn? ;->
1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
Was Paul WRONG about this???
It's been explained to you why Paul couldn't have wrote I & II Timothy or Titus. But whomever did write it was wrong.
Quite true.
Instead of 'Christians', they ought to label themselves 'Paulians'.
Duh
Of course the Bible was meant to tell people how God created the Earth, why there's many different cultures, etc.
A five year old could figure that out. The question is, how does that fact alone infer that they are myths.
These stories probably started out...
Probably?...and here I thought you had proof for your statement of certainty in the first quote.
Luis, you missed three verses:
Genesis 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. and the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. [Is it a curious thing for God to say "whosoever?"]
Genesis 1:28 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.
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.
Don't use today's model of two children as the typical family - Adam and Eve multiplied!!!
Please point me to that explanation.
Don't know about inspired writings, but the FSM tee-shirts are cool.
It would seem your contribution to this thread is more projection than discussion.
Exaggeration is so common in ancient "histories" (including the OT) that one of my Western Civ professors in college recommended that, when we came across a reference to a specific number of people or soldiers, to divide the number by 10 to get a more accurate "body count."
Could you be a little more concise? Perhaps you could point me to the explanation Elsie was given.
In 140CE, Marcion -- bishop of Sinope, wrote the first explicit canon. The Old Testament was excluded -- that was of the Jewish God. Just two divisions: Euangelion, the Gospel of the Lord, and Apostolikon, the epistles of Paul. The pastorals were not mentioned in Marcion's canon.
After Marcion was excommunicated in 144 as a threat to the Roman church, the Church then had to get busy with organization and rejecting "false doctrine".
Which, surprisingly, just happens to be the core of the pastoral letters.
More surprisingly, is that the "false doctrine" that Paul preached against in Galatians was the "Judaizers". But somehow the "false doctrine" in the pastorals is Gnosticism (I Tim 6:20).
The "Judaizers" of Paul's time was the Church of James, Peter, and John in Jerusalem. Of course after 70CE the Jerusalem Church was no longer a problem, -- but gnostic cults were sprouting up like weeds. This was a problem for the early church.
Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna (who opposed Marcion calling him "first-born of Satan."), was instrumental in developing the church doctrine against "false teachings" and it shows in Philippians. However it wasn't until his student, Irenaeus, that we have the first documented quotations, evidence of the existence of the Pastoral letters. ~170CE.
Did I mention Paul died in 66CE ?
Finally, the oldest manuscript of the letters of Paul we have is dated c.200 and is generally known as Papyrus 46. This codex does not contain the Pastoral letters (nor Philemon, interestingly enough).
Her 'point' is impeachment by association. I see no reason to give benefit of doubt on a theoretical possibility of doubt.
I don't think JW or Mormons accept Jesus as their saviour
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.