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?"

[Elsie]

It's been explained to you why Paul couldn't have wrote I & II Timothy or Titus. But whomever did write it was wrong.

Yup, it sure was, but that don't make it so.

I guess Moses was wrong to have the Genesis account written down as well.

Your arguement isn't with me, but the WRITERS of these texts.

You're upset 'cause I believe it!

[Elsie]

The Adam-Noodly Sistine Chapel ceiling ones?

Yup... a hoot!

[Elsie]

This codex does not contain the Pastoral letters (nor Philemon, interestingly enough).

And this proves what?

[papertyger]

The Rabbis say "coincidence" is not a kosher word.

[Elsie]

In fact, the Hebrew Bible is very "rooted" in the Israelites' world, the 8th century BC Near East;

Duh!

however, that doesn't mean that every single character in the Hebrew Bible actually existed and that even the more "historical" characters are accurately portrayed.

Unless you have proof of these charges, it is unfounded.

[MineralMan]

""If they just knew Josh!" his mother, Diana White, exclaimed between sobs. "He just made a mistake. Everybody plays on the job, even cops. But with this one, it caught up. He's going to pay for it for the rest of his life." "

---

That's a very interesting passage, to be sure. It is paralleled by others where Jesus says that he is there to be the Messiah to the Jews only.

In other passages, he corrects himself. It's a tough one to figure out. Either Jesus was misquoted, or he didn't know what he was on Earth for, or the New Testament was messed with to include Gentiles.

You have found a key passage...one that has been at the center of a lot of discussion.

If you want my opinion, it is that the New Testament was much fiddled with around the time of the establishment of the Canon. Of all the writings available at the time, only some were selected. Others were discarded. How much redaction was done on what was included is pretty much impossible to tell at this point.

[Elsie]

So you're simply content to undermine the veracity of the Bible in a generalized, non-specific way?

That's how we learned it in college!

[Elsie]

;^)

[Elsie]

""If they just knew Josh!" his mother, Diana White, exclaimed between sobs. "He just made a mistake. Everybody plays on the job, even cops. But with this one, it caught up. He's going to pay for it for the rest of his life." "

???

My reasoning on what Jesus said is that the JEWS were the chosen people, the ones to take God's message to the world, and Jesus was the cuminateing (sp?) figure.

IF the Jews had accepted Him as Savior (more than what did), then possibly Paul would not have been needed as an envoy to the Gentiles. (Hard to say what MIGHT have happened.)

[Junior]

If all other examples of "histories" from the ancient world are slanted and exaggerated, why shouldn't one assume the same of Jewish history until evidence bears out differently?

[MineralMan]

"My reasoning on what Jesus said is that the JEWS were the chosen people, the ones to take God's message to the world, and Jesus was the cuminateing (sp?) figure.

IF the Jews had accepted Him as Savior (more than what did), then possibly Paul would not have been needed as an envoy to the Gentiles. (Hard to say what MIGHT have happened.)"

---

Oops! I guess I forgot to copy your words into the clipboard. Oh well.

It's interesting that the mission to the Gentiles really doesn't come into play until Acts. One can find some reference to saving all people in the Gospels, but you're more likely to find Jesus saying that he is there for the Jews.

Somewhere along the line, something changed, and it started, really, with Paul and his vision. Now you're getting into tough areas, and areas that are the causes of a lot of difficulty for the beginnings of the Universal Church. Several heresies developed over some of these apparent conflics. On the other hand, most Christians now accept that Jesus always meant to save the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

I can't begin to discuss all of this here, and won't. It would take a lot of digging into my reference books, and I just don't have the time. It's an interesting study, but an advanced one. I'm not really sure I understand all the details, myself.

However, you've discovered one of the reasons that Paul's letters have become so important to Christianity...Paul represents an affirmation of salvation for Gentiles. It's also why detailed study of the Gospels isn't high on the list for many pastors. It's a lot easier to move from the basics of the Gospels directly through to Paul. It avoids a lot of difficult questions.

[papertyger]

If all other examples of "histories" from the ancient world are slanted and exaggerated, why shouldn't one assume the same of Jewish history until evidence bears out differently?

You're kidding, right?

A) evidence *has* borne out differently as with the previously mentioned Babylonian court. B) Equating Holy Writ with 'histories' is the equivalent of equating slips of paper with 'cash'. No one structured a society or founded a religion that survives to this day based on the writings of Josephus. C) Ancient Jews intended to be different from their neighbours. Why presume that's not the casse here? D) because no one has yet provided a definitive example of such exaggeration.

[My2Cents]

The first creation account, Genesis. 1:1 to Genesis. 2:4a, was written during or after the Jews' Babylonian captivity.

This is unmitigated bull. No one believes this. Why is it that people who wish to undermine the authority and reliability of scripture go into the ministry? Probably because they have no other skills.

[My2Cents]

Rev. Watkins is an author, educator, and community activist.

...and a liberal who throws doubt into the hearts of believers.

[pby]

The cool t-shirts seem to be the best evidence for faith in the FSM.

They are the best evidence presented on this thread...I wonder if the same company prints deist t-shirts as well.

Apparently, deists are in desperate need of evidences for their faith too.

[Junior]

The evidence hasn't borne out in regards to the sequence, or even the reality of the Exodus, for instance. As for Scripture being "holy writ" and different from other accounts, it is only considered such by those who believe it to be so. Indeed, there is no evidence that Scripture really is the Word of God, and lots of evidence it isn't (for example, equating bats with birds -- something a human writer would be expected to do, but which a diety would be expected to get right).

So, I reiterate, why should the OT get the benefit of the doubt when contemporary writings from co-located cultures do not?

[dljordan]

I'm already a Universal Life Minister and I've got my certificate to prove it. Need anybody married?

[Junior]

So, when was it written and what evidence do you have to back up your contentions?

As for your comments on those who go into the ministry, I believe they go into it with the best of intentions, but once they actually start really delving into Scripture the obvious errors and contradictions found therein make them begin questioning the whole thing.

Most "Christians" are completely unfamiliar with their own Scriptures, relying instead on others to interpret them; most don't even read the Bible, but simply half remember Bible stories from Sunday school. However, when scholars subject "holy writ" to the same analysis to which they subject other ancient writings, those same Biblically-illiterate Christians are the first to cry "foul."

[Chasaway]

"...my problem is with people who want to pick and choose what Scriptures they believe..."

A friend of mine did this; believed whatever worked (whatever was convenient or more easily believed by him).

We called this "Mr. Potato-Jesus" theology.

[newguy357]

Thanks for quoting irrelevant scripture to me. I could do the same but I'm not such a fool. Apparently you don't believe what I said about Jesus calling people's intelligence into question, so read Mark 7:18. That was my only point. I don't know why you take such offense to this. Does the truth hurt your feelings?

Further, what is the point of your "don't judge" theme? Of course I don't judge--i.e., decide the final outcome of a person't eternity--because that is reserved for God. Where did I judge? Please show me. What, you can't? Because you were wrong? Did you even read what I wrote? No? Try harder next time.

And in answer to your oft quoted "judge not lest ye be judged," that only applies to people who do not claim to believe. If someone claims to be a believer following Christ then we are commanded to judge him and his actions. Or have you not read 1 Corin. 5? 11But 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. 12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."