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?"
I see you're an expert at quoting irrelevant scripture out of context as well. Congratulations, I'm sure the Lord is pleased with that.
I've got my print online certificate. Haven't ordered one yet.
Give my regards to Morton's Demon.
MM, you are mistaken.
"The question of whether the first couple of chapters of Genesis are literal or story-telling makes no difference, really."
Unless you mean they make no difference to an atheist.
The lineage of Adam is absolutely necessary. Through Adam, we have all inherited a sin nature that can only be dealt with by the sacrifice of God Himself, through Jesus dieing on the cross.
If we instead evolved from apes, some of us would be of a line that had no sin. Also, if humans were from apes, the other humans would see how severly God dealt with Adam and Eve, that they would never do the same. That would open the door for prejudism.
"The lineage of Adam is absolutely necessary. Through Adam, we have all inherited a sin nature that can only be dealt with by the sacrifice of God Himself, through Jesus dieing on the cross.
"
OK, I'll grant you that, in terms of Christianity. However, the allegory would still make sense, given that humans created through evolutionary means would still be imperfect creatures, subject to error. Indeed, evolutionary origins of humanity would produce constant small errors in design, resulting in that very imperfection.
But, I realize that many Christians are convinced that the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts are literal. That's fine, if it helps them with their faith. Many other Christians, however, are not necessarily believers in the literality of the Genesis creation accounts. They still believe in the sinful nature of man and the need for salvation.
My point is that it doesn't matter, because being Christian means accepting those two things, along with a short list of others. Belief in man's sinful nature and the need for salvation through Jesus is the core of Christianity. The Genesis account is not. Either path leads to the same conclusion.
Your inability to follow does not prove a lack of direction.
So, since Jesus has died, we no longer have to worry about that inherited sin, do we?
Your example of bats and birds is a fine reason to question your own presumptions.
You are actually arguing a failure to follow relatively recent naming conventions and categorizations constitutes an error.
How myopic is that?
You are right, but people really get bent out of shape over it.
He's standing right next to you..turn to him and tell him that I said, "Hello".
He's the one that encourages you to post about the FSM replacing God the Creator in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
He's the one that encourages you to be a deist despite the lack of evidence for your faith.
Your statement that you are a deist based on your own reason is something akin to making it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts "which others are not privy to...which is perfectly supported by the facts which the demon lets through the gate".
When faced with the external evidence for the Bible being God's inspired Word, Morton's Demon let you believe that the fulfilled prophecies were vague when they aren't vague at all. That was demonstrated to you...But, apparently, before that truth could sink in, Morton's Demon opened the gate and swept the truth out.
Morton's Demon also may have encouraged you to post, without any citation or factual evidence, that Nostradamus's prophecies are more accurate than the Bible's. It isn't true...but I'm sure the gate is wide open again.
Isn't it a little ironic that when pressed for evidences for your faith (in deism and the FSM)...in the end you are only left with Morton's Demon?
As usual, behind the sarcasm and thin veneer of intellectual appeal, there is no evidence for your belief system.
Bats != birds, no matter the "naming convention." A diety would know this, but primitive goat herders would not. Even more damning is the notion that locusts have four legs, or that pi = 3. I notice that whenever obvious Biblical errors come up, the apologists attempt to stretch reality to cover their beliefs. These "explanations" may placate the true believer, but to those with even an inkling of rationality they smack of sophistry.
If God ever had a hand in writing the Bible, His contribution has long since been papered over by generations of editors.
So you're saying it's functionally impossible refute your position?
As to Scripture not being the innerrant Word of God? I believe the evidence is on my side in that regard. The arguments that you and your fellows have put forth for the validity of the Bible as divinely-inspired would not convince a rational skeptic.
Of course. Yet the lack of direction remains.
Actually, the evidence, via manuscripts (Dead Sea scrolls 250 B.C.- 135 A.D., etc.), and writings of early New Testament church fathers demonstrate that the Bible has been remarkably, and accurately, preserved down through history.
The Dead Sea scrolls (100,000 pieces), and other manuscripts, confirm the accuracy of today's Old Testament.
In totality, there are about 6000 manuscripts that support today's Bible.
The New Testament can be almost totally reconstructed via historical documents that prove the New Testament's accuracy.
Your statement just is supported by the evidence.
What is your belief system and what external evidences exist for it...certainly nothing that comes even minutely close to the Bible?
I meant to say:
Your statement is just not supported by the evidence.
That wasn't the question.
My post with the Dead Sea scrolls was intended for Junior.
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.