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?"
Thank you for the link. I'm very interested in these ancient writings.
However, could you summarize for me why the traditional view is inferior to this dissenting, perhaps even deconstructed, view?
That is not correct.
They reject Jesus as deity.
placemark
i live in the same area as james watkins. he's a liberal activist on every political issue. Jesus beleived the law and the prophets literally. in John's gospel, He says the Scripture cannot be broken. the only Scripture that He had was the Pentateuch and the prophets. In Matthew, He says that the Scripture is accurate to every "jot and tittle." (even the smallest punctuation marks)
you may be religious and not believe the Scripture - you're just not a follower of Christ. in other words, you're not a Christian. If Adam didn't sin - then there was no need for the sacrifice on the cross of the sinless lamb. if the garden of eden didn't exist and adam and eve didn't introduce sin into the human race - then the whole basis of Christianity is false (man's reconciliation to God through the sacrifice of His only begotten son made necessary because of sin).
you can't have it both ways. either you believe what Christ believed or you don't. if you don't, you're not a Christian. just like a marxist who doesn't believe in Marx's "materialist conception of history" is not really a marxist - by definition not theology.
i have no problem with people questioning the validity of the Scriptures. my problem is with people who want to pick and choose what Scriptures they believe and then insist that they are "Christians." by definition - they are not.
This is where the concept comes...
NIV 1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
13. God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Probably the polygamy of the early LDS organization fit them into the 'sexually immoral' label. Perhaps the 'idolatry' would fit on the strange concept of the Christ.
I'm confused. To what 'personal' attack are you refering??
Isn't 'coincidence' wonderful! ;^)
I've noticed some vague ramblings as well....
E=Mc2
Therefore...
M=E/c2
The question is:
Where did the ENERGY come from, to create this Mass?
NIV Luke 12:57
"Why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?NIV John 7:24
Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." (Said Jesus)
NIV Acts 15:19
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. (Says St. Luke)
NIV Romans 14:1
Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
NIV 1 Corinthians 5:12-13
12. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
13. God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
NIV 1 Corinthians 6:2-4
2. Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?
3. Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!
4. Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!
NIV 1 Corinthians 2:15-16
15. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16. "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
NIV 1 Corinthians 5:3
Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.
NIV 1 Corinthians 7:25
Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.
NIV 1 Corinthians 7:40
In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is--and I think that I too have the Spirit of God.NIV 1 Corinthians 10:15
I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.
NIV 1 Corinthians 11:13
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1 Corinthians 11:1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
This is 'editorializing', not inaccuracy.
I merely wondered what the 'basic rules' were; as you understand them.
Both of you!
Step back, take a breath, count to ten if necessary.
I think we ALL are taking offence when none was intended, at least as I see it.
both
So you're simply content to undermine the veracity of the Bible in a generalized, non-specific way?
Exactly. I would highly recommend that many posters on this thread take an inter-denominational bible study course on Genesis, i.e. Bible Study Fellowship. There are obviously numerous fringe beliefs out there but BSF is at least one source that is based on representation from the mainstream Christian denominations.
I guess ol' King Solomon was right!
There IS nothing new under the sun!
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.