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?"
NIV Matthew 10:18
On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles.
This doesn't count; in your opinion?
And if your friend gave you a gift at your last birthday party, and you failed to open it and use it, He'd be quite disappointed I would imagine.
Kinda conflicts with the other parts of that chapter. The thing is, Elsie, is that I don't particularly trust the Gospels to be all that accurate. I know that you do, and that's great.
I have my own opinions about the establishment of the Canon, and they include some creative redacting to make the New Testament more appealing to non-Christians. They're my opinions, only, although some other scholars might well agree.
There is a conflict in that very chapter, you see. It's a knotty problem.
Does anyone else ever think these issues through, or do they just accept them because they were told that was the way it was?
He's also wrong FReepmail me if you want the supporting evidence.
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. [1Ki 7:23]If pi was the right value, the line that did compass it around would've been almost thirty-one and a half. I expect men to fudge numbers, but dieties should be expected to get it right.
Also he made a molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass, and five cubits the height thereof; and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. [2Ch 4:2]
Nope, you're the first!
Of course, when you frame the questions in such a way as to always arrive at your predetermined conclusion what anyone else thinks isn't really relevant, now is it ;^>
The irony dripping from that statement...
No, your not, but you'd have to be familiar with hebrew to know it.
If you're bored, with nothing else to do, you can always check out this website.
I don't agree with the politics of the website but I'm comfortable with the religious aspects of it.
I clicked on your lin out of curiosity and boredom and here's what I found. Deists who see order in the universe (ID) and nonsense about the founding fathers. George Washington was not a deist. What exactly do you think is worthwhile there?
Dieties? Perhaps you meant deities. I'm curious-- just what do you think was being made?
So you think scripture says creation occurred on 2 days? Um, okay. :::Rolling eyes:::
1. My post was not addressed to you.
2. That you are trying to pick a fight over the political aspects suggests irrationality on your part or an inability to comprehend what you've read.
I wrote: "I don't agree with the politics of the website..." What part of this statement is unclear? Note that this is a rhetorical question.
Yeah, so?
And now that you've blessed me with an address, what exactly on that site do you think is worthwhile reading?
You can't get past the first three paragraphs without blatant balogna assaulting ones senses.
Because it shows the shift from small local churches to a monolithic Katholikos ecclesia (Universal or Catholic church) with ecclesiastical doctrine that wasn't supported by (then) existing texts.
In the 2nd and 3rd centuries, the first writings weren't 'Holy Scripture' as the Jews would call it. Based on what has been recovered from the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, the Jewish scribes were remarkablely faithful in copying what they considered 'Sacred writings'.
In contrast, the early Gentile redactors felt free to add, change, or delete whole passages if it suited the church's developing dogma.
The long conclusion of Mark 16:9-20, John 8:3-11, (the adulterous woman), Acts 8:37-38 (the baptism of the Ethiopian), I John 5:7-8 (the Johannine Comma), the obscuration of the 'Beloved Disciple' in John, etc. all show the hand of a redactor. It wasn't until the 5th century that the texts became unalterable 'scripture'.
In the case of the Pastoral Epistles, they were made out of whole cloth and attributed to Paul to give them authority.
The Pastorals justified (a coincidence, I'm sure) the Church's suppression of the local churches on the basis of 'false teachings'; Gnostic at first, then the heresy of Arius, then later still the wholesale massacre of Cathars.
Demonstrably false.
"So you think scripture says creation occurred on 2 days? Um, okay. :::Rolling eyes:::"
THINK??? No I can read and on two separate 'days' a creation of human beings is given. Our Heavenly Father did not create this mess He said HIS creation was GOOD. I will believe what HE says not what silly unlearned people try and make fit
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.