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?"

[Skywalk]

I won't address wallcrawlr, but the idea of a scapegoat (which is what the blood sacrifice of Christ is, essentially) is ridiculous and belongs in a primitive desert tribe.

Even the non-deity centered Buddhism (Theravada) focuses more exclusively on the individual's enlightenment. Through sin the individual is tied to the circle of suffering and birth and rebirth. Through enlightenment they are released, but Buddha didn't die for others and HIS enlightenment is not somehow a replacement for the work that YOU have to do.

This is like me coming up to you and demanding you believe in something, oft-times, a story you don't even have good access to (how many Cambodians knew much about the Bible, is that THEIR fault?) and telling me my failure to believe some cockamamie story (often completely outside the realm of my cultural experience) is going to lead to my eternal punishment.

May I take the place of a man on death row? Can he be redeemed? Don't give me anything about me "not being God." It doesn't really matter. Either sins can be transferred or they can't. The divinity of the scapegoat is irrelevant.

ANd it's also really kind of stupid to devise a creature who is BORN imperfect, blame him for his own sin and threaten him with eternal punishment (even Buddhist hell is temporary) if he doensn't take the word of ONE denomination of ONE particular religion as "Gospel truth."

Again, this God-concept some of you have sounds utterly heartless, vindictive, petty, tyrannical and basically THE IDENTICAL TWIN to every other Middle Eastern despot of his day.

[Skywalk]

If each person TRULY had a choice, there would have been converts before CHrist was ever born or at least before they heard "the Word."

People don't just break out of their own cultural backgrounds, especially when they are simple, hard-working farmers much of the time. To expect some kind of "choice" to occur in these situations is silly.

Choice and free will are not wholly unchained from experience and life circumstances. The young boy who is brainwashed from birth to be a Jew-hater is likely going to grow up one. AT some point he may go another direction, but not if his ENTIRE culture is promoting that as the way to go. As with all humanity, there will be exceptions.

And putting such a horrendous choice on the moral human being is ridiculous. THe person responsible for the creation of the universe and the imperfect nature of man is God. The choice is actually His.

[JohnnyM]

The Word says that the Cross of Christ is foolishness to those who do not beleive, and I tend to agree. I mean the idea that it is faith that saves us through Grace by the finished work of Christ on the Cross is just too good to be true. We are hard wired to think that we can be redeemed in our own strength. That we are capable of overcoming sin and have no need of a Savior.

You used the example of a man on death row. This man has sinned against the person he killed and their family, as well as God. His sentence to death row is the payment for that sin, but he still must answer to God. Likewise, we are all men on death row. We have sinned against God and as a Just and Holy God, sin must be punished/dealt with. God, in His great Love, sent His Son to pay that penalty for us, a debt we could never repay. He has redeemed us through the Blood of Christ.

telling me my failure to believe some cockamamie story (often completely outside the realm of my cultural experience) is going to lead to my eternal punishment"

It is your sins that lead you to eternal punishment. Your actions. Your choices.

Either sins can be transferred or they can't. The divinity of the scapegoat is irrelevant.

True. At one time man could sacrifice sheeps and goats to cover his sin for a time, and these creatures were surely not divine. What makes Christ unique is that He was a perfect, sinless man. The perfect sacrifice for our sins. All of our sins were placed on Him. Him who knew no sin became sin for us, so that the wrath of God could be quenched. What makes it even more amazing is that this was the Creator of the Universe who died in our place through a death so gruesome as the Cross. That is a love that I cannot imagine.

The Bible tells us that it is our love for each other that will set us apart, that will point people to Christ, and I confess, that me and my fellow Christians haven't always been that shining example. We are sometimes like that slave in the parable who had a tremendous debt canceled by his master, one he could never payback. Then the slave goes out and demands a colleague of his pay him back a tiny sum, after such a great burden of debt had been lifted from him. Sometimes we demand that tiny debt from other people (saved and unsaved). We hold them to standards that we ourselves could not even hold to, and we forget the debt that was paid on our behalf on the Cross.

The Gospel is not a story of wrath or vindication. It is not a story of condemnation. It is not fire and brimstone. It is the story of the great Love that the Father has for us and the lifting of that tremendous debt. It is releasing us from the bondage of sin into newness of life. Don't let my actions or the actions of some of my brothers and sisters be the reason you do not have a relationship with the Creator of the Universe.

God Bless,
JM

[When_Penguins_Attack]

Yeah, literary criticism is able to parse these things out.

I once reviewed a paper I wrote in school on Existentialism. I then reviewed a paper I wrote a year later on Jean-Paul Sartre, and then a paper on the failure of secularism to provide a meaningful axiology. An interesting set of observations are evident: The style of writing is clearly different. The word choices are different, The emphases are different. The argumentation is logically different, and sentence structure is different.

Now, these are three papers, on the same basic subjects, written within 18 months of each other, in the same geographical setting.

Based on the same crap that literary criticism uses to analyze biblical passages, one can only conclude that I am mistakened and that three different people with three different agendas wrote these papers.

Literary criticism is without a doubt one of the most asinine disciplines in ancient documentary review. It is basically a license to bring your own ignorant prejudices to the text and find a way to justify them.

[wallcrawlr]

There is no reason to address me when JohnnyM steps in.

You chose a good person to talk with Skywalk'er.

[Elsie]

You sound like a scripture lawyer.

I sure HOPE so!

I want to bring a LOT of evidence to the table so the jury can make a better informed decision!

[Elsie]

Judism and Christianity are the ONLY religions that have a Savior; Messiah.


All the others require Man to 'improve' himself.

[Elsie]

THe person responsible for the creation of the universe and the imperfect nature of man is God.

It'll be interesting to see how THIS stands up in court!

(At least it's half right!)

[Elsie]

Welcome aboard!

Love your handle!

(Was it a FOX special? ;^)

[papertyger]

Why would the accuracy of Jesus' teachings be in any way diminished by whether or not the world was created in seven days?

I am not going to prove that which is self evident. Either Jesus knew what He was talking about, or He didn't. Either it was His to forgive sins, or it wasn't. He either healed sick, or he did not. He either changed water to wine, or somebody is lying. He either walked across water, or someone made it up. If He didn't do and say miraculous things as proof of His authority to make pronouncements, then His pronouncements are worthless.

You are trying to find a way to fit into the world, and not offend God, and at least insofar as the God of the Bible is concerned, that's not going to happen.

[Elsie]

---

Just smile and wave, boys; smile and wave....

[countorlock]

Excellent response!

[Just mythoughts]

"I sure HOPE so!

I want to bring a LOT of evidence to the table so the jury can make a better informed decision!"


The Heavenly Father and Christ are the judge and jury and we are suppose to be teaching what the WORD instructs not shortcuts that make Their Word null and void.

There is a reason why those in the "House of God (Bethel) are in line for judgment first.

Evidence? What evidence? The idea that Christ would not be telling us this day that those 10 Commandments are very much still in effect is not a 'defense' for a scripture lawyer.

[Uri’el-2012]

If each person TRULY had a choice, there would have been converts before CHrist was ever born or at least before they heard "the Word."

People don't just break out of their own cultural backgrounds, especially when they are simple, hard-working farmers much of the time. To expect some kind of "choice" to occur in these situations is silly.

Choice and free will are not wholly unchained from experience and life circumstances. The young boy who is brainwashed from birth to be a Jew-hater is likely going to grow up one. AT some point he may go another direction, but not if his ENTIRE culture is promoting that as the way to go. As with all humanity, there will be exceptions.

And putting such a horrendous choice on the moral human being is ridiculous. THe person responsible for the creation of the universe and the imperfect nature of man is God. The choice is actually His.

502 posted on 01/27/2006 3:44:19 AM MST by Skywalk

It seems that you are unfamiliar with the Holy Word of G-d.

The L-rd G-d , creator of the universe has been known since the garden of eden.

It became codified with Moses.

You have to look into your own heart and then seek the face of G-d.
No one can force you; it is your choice.

b'shem Y'shua

[Elsie]

 

Evidence? What evidence?

The idea that Christ would not be telling us this day that those 10 Commandments are very much still in effect is not a 'defense' for a scripture lawyer.

 

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin," (Rom. 3:20).

 

 

 

---

---

 

The law and the gospel
 

     The Law is the do’s and don’t’s of moral behavior. God gave the Law so that people would have a guide to live by and a standard by which they might recognize God’s purity and their sinfulness. There are 613 commandments in the OT They oversee moral, judicial, and religious behavior.
     The Law is a reflection of the character of God because the Law comes forth from the very heart of God. The Bible says out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matt. 12:34).  When God gave the Law, He was speaking out of the abundance of His heart. He was speaking from what was in Him. Therefore, the Law is good, pure, right, and holy. It is wrong to lie, because it is against God’s nature to lie. It is wrong to steal because it is against God’s nature to steal.
     This Law, then, by its very nature of coming out of the heart of God, and being spoken to men, is a standard for human conduct, a perfect standard. Because it was perfect, and we are not, it is impossible for sinful people to keep. It was for this reason that the Law became a stumbling block. It became an obstacle to Man because it is an unattainable perfect standard. The Law, then, brings about the opposite of what it requires. The Law says to be perfect, but shows you where you are not. It says to be holy but condemns you when you are not. Since it is not possible for us to keep the Law and therefore earn our position with God, we then need the holiness of God given to us -- because there simply isn’t any way for us to attain to the standard of God. Therefore, "...the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith," (Gal. 3:24). That is, the Law shows us that we can’t get to God by what we do. We need the grace of God in Christ Jesus manifested in His sacrifice. 

1. The Law reveals our sinfulness.
   1. "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin," (Rom. 3:20).
   2. "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘Do not covet,’" (Rom. 7:7).
2. The Law is for those who are not under grace.
   1. "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God," (Rom. 3:19).
   2. "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace," (Rom. 6:14).
3. The Law justifies no one.
   1. "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law," (Rom. 3:20).
4. The Law makes no concessions; it makes demands.
   1. "Cursed is every man who does not abide by everything written in the book of the law to perform them," (Gal. 3:10).
5. The Law is spiritual: It works on the Spirit, not on the body.
   1. "For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh," (Rom. 7:14).
   2. "Thou shalt not..." applies to the heart, not the body.
6. We are made righteous in God’s eyes by grace apart from the Law of God.
   1. "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law," (Rom. 3:28).
   2. "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).
   3. "know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified," (Gal. 2:16).
7. The Law brings judgment.
   1. "...because law brings wrath," (Rom. 4:15).
8. The Law prepares us for the gospel
   1. The Law shows us that the free gift of the gospel is the only way to attain righteousness.
   2. "The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith," (Gal. 3:24).
      1. Being saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8) is only found in the Christian religion. Only Christianity has the message of free, unearned, grace.
9. The Law is for the ungodly.
   1. "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God," (1 Tim. 1:8-11).

• The Law differs from the gospel in:
  1. The manner of revelation.
     1. The Law is revealed in the hearts of man.
        1. "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts..." (Rom. 2:14-15).
        2. It would be impossible to convert anyone if the Law had not been written on their hearts because the Law reveals sin (Rom. 3:20).
     2. The gospel is by direct revelation; it is not written on the heart.
        1. "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand," (1 Cor. 15:1).
  2. Contents.
     1. The Law tells what people are to do (our works). It makes demands (Deut. 27:26).
     2. The Gospel reveals what God is doing (God’s work). Therefore, it makes no demands on us except faith (Rom. 6:23).
     3. The Law is the list of do’s and don’t’s (Exodus 20)
     4. The Gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus for sins (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
        1. It contains grace and truth (John 1:17) because the gospel is about Jesus.
  3. Promises
     1. The Law and the gospel both promise eternal life:
        1. The Law by complete obedience to all its commands (Lev. 18:5; Luke 10:26).
        2. The gospel by grace unconditionally (Rom. 3:22-24, Eph. 2:8-9). It demands nothing, makes no threats. It removes from sinners the desire to sin.
• Effects of preaching the Law.
  1. It tells us what to do, but does not enable us to do it. This can frustrate us because we cannot keep it!
  2. Reveals to man his sins. It offers no help to get him out; hurls man into despair.
     1. "...I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet,’" (Rom. 7:7).
  3. It brings to our awareness damnation, hell, and hopelessness.
     1. "But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear," (Isaiah 59:2).
     2. "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree,’" (Gal. 3:13).
• Effects of preaching the gospel.
  1. It demands faith and gives it to us.
     1. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of Christ," (Rom. 10:17).
  2. It does not reprove the sinner.
     1. "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," (Rom. 8:1).
  3. It does not require anything good for man to do either in heart, mind or body because it is a free gift.
     1. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord," (Rom. 6:23).
• Who the Law and the Gospel are preached to.
  1. The Law is preached to sinners, those secure in their sin.
     1. "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching," (1 Tim. 1:8-10).
  2. The Gospel is preached to those who are alarmed, frightened, smitten by the law; to those who are made thirsty for the Gospel message.
     1. "...through the law we become conscious of sin," (Acts 4:20).
     2. "So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith," (Gal. 3:24).

---

 

 

Most of us would rather be ruined by praise,
 than saved by criticism.

[newguy357]

I read all translations, and I did not see thw word "idiot" being spoke by Jesus once.

Stop being intentionally dull. If I call someone "massive" I am calling them large without using the word "large." Likewise, Jesus calling people dull is quite within the same vein as if he called them idiots.

And even if He did, it's interesting to note that you believe yourself His equal in that way.

Really? And where did I call myself the equal of Jesus? That's right, I didn't. But thanks for painting things contrary to reality. I merely pointed out precedence for Jesus insulting the intelligence of others.

[newguy357]

Well, we'll just have to disagree.

Sure, we can disagree if you'd like. We can also disagree on a lot of other things: I insist the sky is blue, that water is liquid, and that rabbits are smaller than horses--and you're welcome to disagree, but it does not change the facts. Likewise, there is no contradiction between Gen. 1 and 2 and therefore no logical NEED to take them symbolically/allegorically. You can still choose to do so, of course, but a person is not required to by the laws of logic. You cannot argue against that any more than you can argue against my statements earlier. And anyway, if Gen. 1 and 2 did contradict, why would you choose to be interested in a religion with contradictory symbols?

[Aquinasfan]

I found this fascinating argument for Genesis being one book having one author. It's a long read, but well worth it. It explains the supposed contradictions between the two accounts of creation in Genesis.

In a nutshell, the the two accounts fit into a structured literary format. The elements of the story are arranged in a "chiasmus," ABCDEDCBA, for example, explaining the necessity of two accounts, since the account of creation isn't the central story item, "E."

Secondly, the supposed difficulty with the animals being created after man in the second account can be explained by the single past tense for verbs in Hebrew.

[MEGoody]

No I can read and on two separate 'days' a creation of human beings is given.

LOL Well, if that's what you want to think, go for it.

Our Heavenly Father did not create this mess He said HIS creation was GOOD.

Yes, and then Adam and Eve made a poor choice, and sin entered the world.

I will believe what HE says not what silly unlearned people try and make fit

If that's true, then you must believe that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, as that is what scripture clearly says.

[Just mythoughts]

"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin," (Rom. 3:20).


Taking one scripture out of a whole subject matter, using it to claim the law no longer is in effect and saying Christ did away with the law won't cut it. Paul says in 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.