Become a Universal Life Church minister and
compete with Rev. Jackson
for flock to fleece.
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?"
So how do you explain Genesis? I'm really curious - why do you attack someone who grapples with the apparent contradiction in Genesis. How do you handle the two different versions of Creation?
Is acceptance of one particular interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 a prerequisite to being a "true" Christian? And if so, which interpretation is the "correct" one?
I rarely post on threads about this topic, but after seeing this post I had to ask. Do you have any data to back this statement up? If so, please provide a link, or was it simply your interperetation of a percieved assumption? I do not want to appear hostile in any way, not am I trying to be, but the gravity of that statement made me want to ask.
Freepgards,
Become a Universal Life Church minister and
compete with Rev. Jackson
for flock to fleece.
I'm not trained in the bible but I have read Genesis. I don't see two (or more) stories but one. A story of creation in which "man" is created and a second one of special creation in which "adam and eve" are created. When they are thrown out of the garden, they are put in with the rest of man and thus no problem with who the "wife" of cain is. Since the story of Adam and Eve is the story of the jews, the time line could well be accurate (3,000 + years?) along with the geologic age of the earth.
Like a lot of things that the scholars come up with, I'm sure all this can be debunked with parallelograms of force etc. But for me, I can reconcile most stories of the bible with scientific truth with very little effort as long as I don't have an expert explaining why I am wrong.
Faith? maybe, but I'm not at all religious.
by calling everyone who disagrees with him an idiot, natch
"I rarely post on threads about this topic, but after seeing this post I had to ask. Do you have any data to back this statement up? If so, please provide a link, or was it simply your interperetation of a percieved assumption? I do not want to appear hostile in any way, not am I trying to be, but the gravity of that statement made me want to ask."
I can't really provide a link or anything like that. My statement is based on the general perception that the literal 6-day creation story is not widely believed. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest denomination of Christianity, does not teach it as literal fact, and even allows for evolution as a good explanation for the multiplicity of species.
The other mainstream denominations, Methodists, Episcopals, Prebyterians, Lutherans, etc. also do not claim literality for the creation story. Using the scripture, as in 2Peter 3:
"8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a THOUSAND YEARS, and a THOUSAND YEARS as one day.
"
They allow for the creation story to be taken as an allegory for creation.
So, my statement is really based on a general knowledge of the teachings of the mainstream churches, which, together, make up a majority of Christianity.
I'm sorry I can't give you a better source.
How does this guy know that the second chapter was written after the captivity to Babylon? It is my understanding that Moses wrote Genesis and Moses died hundreds of years before the Babylonian captivity.
Hogwash. Just another liberal posing as a Christian, who believes any theory that disproves the Bible. Here's part of this church's doctrinal statement:
"We strive towards this goal by attempting to be open to those aspects of culture that help to make human life more human and to work through institutions and to support laws that reflect God's justice and love to seek justice and liberation for all."
Sounds like gay promoting buzz words.
""Both groups, however, accept Jesus as their savior. That's why they're Christians. The question of whether the first couple of chapters of Genesis are literal or story-telling makes no difference, really."
You're right, but how come there's so much disdain on FR for Jehovah's Winesses and mormons (among others)?"
Understood and thank you for the clarification.
I also see one story. The first chapter of Genesis is the big picture, the overview. The second chapter is an inset, a closeup, a detail of some of the events in chapter one. Sure different human authors have written the events...many different human authors wrote the bible. But the real author, God, made sure that the events important to man were recorded.
The JEDP Theory in a Nutshell
J P Holding
Maybe you have heard of the "JEDP" theory, or else, have heard of theories that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy), and that it was written later in Israel's history.
What does JEDP stand for? J is supposed to be Jawhist (or Yahwist), a writer who had a thing for the name "Yahweh" and viewed God as very personal E is supposed to be Elohimist, a writer who had a thing for the name "Elohim" and viewed God as somewhat distant D is supposed to be Deuteronomist, a writer who composed Deuteronomy and maybe did a few tweaks here and there P is supposed to be Priestly, a writer who took the works of J, E and D and mashed them together into what we have now, adding his own touches
The JEDP theory has a lot of mutations, with some people adding other letters, and offering a variety of ideas about when each writer did their work, though all agree that little if any of the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses.
What's wrong with this theory? Find out: http://www.tektonics.org/nutshell/nutshelljedp.html
But what makes the brain itch is that, like all scoffers, he writes as if this were a brilliant, little known revelation he'd just hit on -- instead of an old, tired, oft-refuted dodge that (like ground beef) isn't smelling any better with age.
But thank God he's SO much smarter than the original editor who put these contradictory stories together, without noticing what The Good Reverend in all his brilliance has now unearthed for us, the unwashed masses! Thank God his moral and spiritual judgment is so much better than Jesus, who affirmed both accounts!
< /molten, blistering, volcanic sarcasm >
MM - even the Bible implies that it is allegorical:
"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:18
"For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Psalm 90:4
I don't see how someone could be a Bible "literalist" and ignore/deny parts of the Bible.
The AMBER Plan was created in 1996 as a powerful legacy to 9-year-old Amber Hagerman, a bright little girl who was kidnapped and brutally murdered while riding her bicycle in Arlington, Texas. The tragedy shocked and outraged the entire community. Residents contacted radio stations in the Dallas area and suggested they broadcast special “alerts” over the airwaves so that they could help prevent such incidents in the future.
"MM - even the Bible implies that it is allegorical:
"
Thanks. I also quoted the 2Peter passage. It's always been pretty easy for believers to understand that a deity is not constrained by human measurements of time.
I really believe that most Christians and Jews are able to understand that the creation story is allegorical. The central belief is that creation was done by God. How God did it is not really the issue, nor can it be answered in a couple of chapters in Genesis. It's also unimportant, given the assumption that God is omnipotent.
I've often thought the same thing. It seems hypocritical when they accuse others of doing practically the same thing they are doing themselves.
It was kind of rhetorical ; )
What I don't understand is how much some biblical literalists have invested in the literal view. It's loopy at times.
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.