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?"

[MineralMan]

Ah...OK, then.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Snorri Sturluson's description is among the best. Of course, it's Indo-European rather than Semitic.

[TX Bluebonnet]

I took a Genesis class in college. For every passage wwe had to note whether it was P - Priestly, J- Yawist and an occaisiional R-Redactor. Very interesting. I agree the Priestly writings are very dry, The J were the ones I liked the best.

[GSlob]

Easily. They are both equally valid, or, more technically, both accounts have equal validity quotients. Mind you, it is not stated that these quotients are above zero.

[Emmalein]

I admire your insight on this subject. My grandfather, a Baptist minister, had similar thoughts and concepts on various aspects of the Bible. He never dared preach these thoughts but we discussed them often during my teen years and later. To me he was a Renaissance man...he was very scholarly and learned, continually working to expand his knowledge base, he was also a scientist and a math teacher, could rebuild any engine or mechanical contraption, and was a mean gardener. lol

Anyway, thank you for your insight.

[AlGone2001]

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 like this summation in John 1

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%201&version=31

All text in red is mine.

---

John 1

The Word Became Flesh

1    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

There is a a figurative term/name for someone called "the Word" .  The Word is God.

2    He was with God in the beginning.

The Word was with God during creation.  Don't consider it odd that John's Gospel starts with "In the beginning", as does the book of Genesis.  In fact, Genesis takes its name from the the Hebrew word for "In the beginning."

3    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 

This person, called "the word", who also happened to be Go, made every single thing.

4    In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 

From Genesis we read, "and the Lord said, let there be light" on the first day.  That was surely a true light, but not the sun or moon, as they were created on the 4th day.  My personal opinion is that the Lord created time at that point, and the light also served as a symbolic gesture that the Lord had a plan to atone man's sin.

5    The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

That seems to have been a parable of sorts, about how light (salvation) and darkness (sin) are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Compare this to another biblical verse:

1 Corinthians 2:14 (New International Version)

14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

6    There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 

7    He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 

John was sent to preach about the light of this Word.

8    He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 

John the Baptist came to bring revelation about someone called "the Light".

9    The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.[b]

There is true light, and artificial light.

10    He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 

This person, called "the Light", made the world, but the world didn't recognize the "true light".

11    He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 

He came to those He made, but they rejected Him.

12    Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 

13    children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

This is what it means to be born again.

14    The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This person, called the Word, and "the Light", was the creator, and appeared on earth, only to be rejected by His creation.

15    John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " 

Even John the Baptist realized that Christ was present at the creation, because biblical record shows that John's mother (Elizabeth) advanced in her pregnancy before Mary came to visit her.  John was not measuring in pure human terms, because he was older by that standaed.  He knew that Jesus was with God in the beginning, as did the Apostle John.

16    From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 

17    For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[e][f]who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

We know that Christ has seen God, so He has to certainly be "the Word" and "the Light".

---

Jesus was the Word and Light that created everything.  I'll take it straight from the Apostle's pen.

[MineralMan]

"What I don't understand is how much some biblical literalists have invested in the literal view. "

Well, it's one of the foundations of their statement of belief. In some ways, it's the reason these denominations have split off and formed in the first place.

I don't know what the percentage of those who profess Christianity are bible literalists. I suppose there are numbers out there. I'm pretty sure, though, that they represent a small minority of Christians overall.

Lots of the smaller denominations have particular doctrinal issues they take to be very important. Indeed, in some cases, a single doctrinal issue is the only thing that distinguishes many small denominations.

What I find interesting is that the bible literalists often malign the larger majority of Christian denominations as not really Christian. The larger majority, however, does not deny the Christianity of the smaller groups.

Exclusivity, to me, is the least attractive feature of these literalist denominations. It seems to me that Jesus was not interested in exclusivity in his teachings.

[csense]

The different creation stories are well-known and much discussed among theologians.

If discussion of a controversial issue infers belief of the same, then what would that say for the evolutionists on this forum, let alone academia.

This isn't even an issue among serious scholars of the bible, and the vast majority find such claims untennable.

There are just too many elements missing for any serious reader of the Bible to conclude that a different Creation story starts at Genesis 2:4. In fact, it doesn't even mention the creation of the Earth, nor does it mention the oceans, fish, whales, Sun, Moon, and stars.

[muawiyah]

Which is a theory that still relies on the idea that NONE of the most ancient founders of the religio/ethnic movement that created the Bible were ever literate until Hebrew had an alphabet.

However, it's quite obvious that both stories have Sumerian and Egyptian origins and were written down in hieroglyphics and syllabries many centuries before any such thing as a Semitic alphabet existed.

No doubt there was a priestly or shamanistic oral tradition that ran alongside the texts, but you can pick out those commentaries even in English translations.

If it were otherwise we'd have to ask why Abram and Moses figure so prominantly.

[HitmanLV]

All very true. Still, it seems to me that accepting the story as allegory just makes a lot more sense than accepting them as literal. The emotional investment is remarkable.

[Lurker]

He calls people idiots, that's how.

L

[MineralMan]

"There are just too many elements missing for any serious reader of the Bible to conclude that a different Creation story starts at Genesis 2:4. In fact, it doesn't even mention the creation of the Earth, nor does it mention the oceans, fish, whales, Sun, Moon, and stars."

---

I'm not really discussing the two stories. I have always found it interesting that there are varying texts out there, and that the Genesis story is so similar in many aspects to pre-mosaic creation stories.

My interest is only in literality. I cannot understand the insistence on literality by some for this ancient tale. It's easy to see that other interpretations can be made, and supported from Biblical sources. The literality of the 24-hour day thing is a real stumbling block, in my opinion.

The very definition of the Judeo-Christian deity as omnipotent and omnipresent makes insistence on a literal interpretation of a tale first told around campfires, then later recorded in written form, a bit silly, in my estimation.

As a writer, I always consider my audience before I put words on paper. I write differently for an audience of children than I do for an audience of academics.

The Pentateuch is so clearly a transcription of an oral telling of history, complete with mnemonic clues, that it's hard to see it otherwise for me. The creation story, condensed into a very small text, is so clearly allegorical to me, that I'm amazed that it is ever taken otherwise.

The technicalities of versions is not an area that interests me all that much. I don't have a knowledge of Hebrew. I am, however, very interested in transcriptions of oral information, and connections to other creation stories in that region of the world. It's fascinating.

Of course, I don't believe in deities at all, so it's purely an academic interest. The Bible is one of the most influential documents of mankind, so I'm naturally interested in it.

[MineralMan]

"Still, it seems to me that accepting the story as allegory just makes a lot more sense than accepting them as literal."

I agree with you completely on that point. Still, I can see the attraction among some to simplify their belief system by taking the Bible literally. It makes life a lot easier, I suppose.

[HitmanLV]

I see what you are saying, but I can see it making life a whole lot more difficult, too.

[SvdByFaith]

One way to understand the bible is to take a study course that helps you understand the launguage and context, like a Precepts course. Genesis is VERY important to understand, since it is the foundation of the entire Bible. Genesis is also one of the hardest books to understand (except Revelations) so people often just skip it and say that it's not to be taken literally. Precept studies make it so clear and understandable, that even a 12 year old can grasp it.

One must understand Moses's writing style to understand why there seems to be different accounts. Moses gives an overview of events in one chapter, then fills in the details in the next. This is a common theme throughout Genesis. In chapter 1, Moses gives us an overview of Creation, and in chapter 2 he fills in the details. He does this again in chapters 10 and 11. In chapter 10 Moses gives us an overview of the separation of nations and the tower of Babel, and in chapter 11, he fills in the details.

If I wrote a story about 9/11 using Moses's style, I would tell that Hijackers crashed planes into American landmarks, killing thousands in Chapter one. Then, in chapter 2 I would go back and describe from the beginning how it happened in great detail. Most writers set up the account in the first paragraph, then give supporting information in the subsequent paragraphs.

The Old Testament was in existence at the time of Christ. He studied from it and taught from it. If there were any errors in it, He would have made it known. Christ accepted it as the perfect written word of God.

I didn't understand most of what I read in the past, and I had so many questions. I relied on what people told me. After doing the Genesis study through Precepts, it all makes perfect sense. The study doesn't tell you what to think or believe, it helps you gather the information and learn for yourself.

Never accept what someone tells you is the truth without studying it for yourself. It's like listening to the MSM for ALL of your news and believing it!

[csense]

Considering the nature of his profession....yes, I feel very comfortable calling him an idiot. But, if it makes you feel any better, then at the very least, he's a liar with an agenda.

[MineralMan]

"I see what you are saying, but I can see it making life a whole lot more difficult, too."

Only if you think about it. [grin]

[KarinG1]

John 1:1-5

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.
ASV

That's all I need to know about creation.

[scripter]

Mr. Watkins does indeed demonstrate some ignorance on the subject - apparently he's stuck in 19^th century scholarship. I'm really surprised to read a modern day reverend would write about the subject without looking into scholarship from the last 100 years. Well, sometimes I'm not surprised.

[SuzyQue]

That's a very thoughtful answer; thank you.

I am troubled by the the idea that what we seem to be arguing here is the meaning of the word "literal". We cannot gloss over the fact that Genesis has two stories with different accounting of events. That means that they are at odds with each other, ie. contradictory. They either are literal or they aren't. The very idea of "literal" does not allow for looser definitions. When I say "red" you can imagine many tints and shades of red. However, when I say RGB 239, 0, 24, that is a specific color that has a measureable reflectivity of colors from the visible electromagnetic spectrum.

So, is it literal or "sorta literal"?