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?"
Wow...very interesting! May I ask how you qualified these assertions?
I'll leave that as an exercise for the student.
Frankly, I'd have been more forthcoming if you hadn't weaseled on my question of being functionally irrefutable, but it pleases my sense of irony to leave you to either track down a fact you don't want to exist, or be bitten by it in a similar discussion in the future.
Don't you think it is cruel to create feeling human beings, knowing that most of them would be tortured for all eternity?
Nice way of saying, "I don't know."
Frankly, I'd have been more forthcoming if you hadn't weaseled on my question of being functionally irrefutable...
I didn't. I answered forthrightly: the evidence supports my position the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God.
It's your choice.
b'shem Y'shua
This is a non-self-evident claim. This harkens back to my contention that organized religion is nothing more than a Music Man-esque con game. You invent a problem, and then you present the solution for a price.
Too late for the Khmer victims (see post #451) as well as Jews who have passed on, right?
Nonsense. This is nothing but a variation on the classic trilema. Christ was either a lunatic, a liar, or exactly who he said he was...but spare me the prattling about great moral teaching.
You say "it is not a history book," but you can't point to anything historical point that is indisputably wrong. You claim anyone "making that assumption is reading it wrong," but you have nothing to offer by way of support except seat-of-the-pants deconstructionism. You say the Hebrew Bible is an "amalgam of works," but ignore what the NT writers have to say about it, as well as what the Hebrews themselves say about it. You pontificate the writings were "shaped by the...situation," as if the recording "the situation" had nothing to do with the divine plan.
I suggest you read CS Lewis "meditation in a toolshed." You seem to be under the mistaken apprehension that looking AT a beam of light tells you more than looking ALONG the beam.
;o)
You have a choice.
b'shem Y'shua
If you think they are not, do you suppose they feel bad about about their parents suffering forever in Hell?
(if you answer "yes" to the first question, then I guess that makes the second question irrelevant)
The argument is not whether there are two distinct and separate accounts of Creation, at least not from me, but rather that what may appear to be two accounts of one incident (Creation) are two accounts of two incidents -- Creation of Earth and the men and women who populated it, and Creation of Eden (and its inhabitants).
Since few of us will have ever have a chance to read the earliest corpus of writings, you'll have to read the work of those that do.
Sorry, sound-bite scholarship or short and concise summary here. You'll have to do the work yourself.
A good start is with Raymond E. Brown -- Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary and member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission :
Introduction to the New Testament
An Introduction to New Testament Christology
The Churches the Apostles Left Behind
The Community of the Beloved Disciple
Dennis MacDonald -- The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon
Hyam Maccoby -- The Mythmaker: Paul And The Invention Of Christianity
E.P. Sanders -- New Perspective on Paul
For on-line resources:
Early Christian Writings
Early Church Fathers
Prof. Torrey Seland's Resource pages for Biblical Studies
Thank you and I agree with your conclusion. Not all scientists do "political" science but some do and they tend to be very visible.
If you think they are not, do you suppose they feel bad about about their parents suffering forever in Hell?
(if you answer "yes" to the first question, then I guess that makes the second question irrelevant)
472 posted on 01/26/2006 3:04:56 PM MST by Ken H
Only G-d knows whom He has chosen. Romans 8:30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, Romans 8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to this? Romans 8:29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed
You may be chosen to accept G-d,
to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
If God is for us, who can be against us?
call on His Holy Name: Y'shua
and ask that your sins be forgiven.
B'shem Y'shua
That is NOT a problem. Thank you for the links!
You can either accept God, or more specifically, Jesus Christ; or you can reject him. The choice is yours.
And just as Christ is bound by his words...so too, will you be bound by yours, so therefore, not only should you choose wisely, but you should speak wisely also...lest you be bound by the words and wisdom of those who have chosen badly.
This the thing I don't understand. The concept of "salvation or eternal torture" sound like god has set up a giant torture chamber. Given that most people past and present have not explicitly committed themselves to Jesus, we can assume that the overwhelming majority of people who have ever or will ever live are doomed to eternal torment. A pretty sick situation.
That's ok; others do.
To go about proving that what the Bible says is true by quoting the Bible is absurd.
Besides, I'm not out to PROVE anything; merely propagate the Word.
Isaiah 55
10. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11. so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
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.