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?"

[unspun]

Because of certain people who take the bible literally.

A couple questions, please:

1.a&b. When something is written in an authentic and well-supported text as figurative, do you take it figuratively? And when another thing is written as literal, do you take it literally?

2. In grade school, what was taught about the first letter of a book title?

;-)

[Dave S]

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?

Obviously according to csense they are both true for the Bible tells him so. Some people lost their ability to think in Sunday School.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

"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."

Consider it a division between Form and Fullness. This is a creation Hymn, it ascribes to God the act and power of creation. Man, as a rational creature, has always wondered about his origins, about the beginnings of the world, the stars, the sun, about his own nature.

By contrast, Hesiod's Theogony, or Snorri Sturleson's description of Norse pagan creation in the prose edda present creation as a grotesque and chaotic event, filled with giants and titans and monsters. (A view to which the modern scientist has returned!) The biblical creation hymn affirms the beauty and fragility the creation and of man's status in the world.

[SuzyQue]

MM - I like the way you think, and I usually find myself agreeing with you and being enlightened by your ideas, so I hope you'll accept one small idea from me:

It seems to me that Jesus was not interested in exclusivity in his teachings.

Sounds like a bit of PC there.  Jesus was inclusive in many things, but downright close-minded in a few.  In fact, reactionary, in that he insisted that people follow the basic rules as instructed by God.  He wasn't very concerned about many of the process kind of issues, circumcision, offerings, mixed fabrics, Gentiles, etc., but he was very definite on the basics - the condition of our souls.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in thereat." Matthew 7:13
"Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:14
"Strive to enter in at the strait gate, for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able."  Luke 13:24

[Dave S]

I don't see how someone could be a Bible "literalist" and ignore/deny parts of the Bible.

What some seem to overlook is that the Bible is not a book per se', it is a library containing many books. Not all are the same. If you go to Borders today you will find some books are fiction, some are non-fiction, some historical, some scientific, some how-to, some philosophical, etc. The fact that a book is fiction, doesnt mean that it doesnt contain valid truths. Otherwise, why would we continue to read the classics? Some books are meant to be read as metaphors, others as history. People run into trouble when they mix the two or assume every book of the Bible is meant to be historical or scientific.

Some also forget that the books where written to fit into the belief structure that existed more than 2000 years ago.

[Accygirl]

The Genesis 1 Creation Myth was written during the Babylonian Exile and has very obvious ties to Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation myth. In Genesis 1, God creates all the Babylonian gods thereby showing that He is the true Supreme Being. I don't know about Genesis 2, except that it was probably written earlier than Genesis 1 and served as a "source" for the priestly writers of the first Creation Myth.

However, the fact that Genesis 1-11 are myths and should not be taken literally is pretty obvious. Like all ancient people, the Israelites created stories in order to explain the world around them, and those stories were rooted in the myths associated with Egypt and Babylon, their two powerful neighbors. That isn't to say that God's existence isn't real, but just that the Israelites way of explaining that existence was through allegory, instead of historical fact.

[MineralMan]

"It seems to me that Jesus was not interested in exclusivity in his teachings.

Sounds like a bit of PC there."

---

I think you may have understood what I meant. The way I see it is that Jesus laid out just a very few rules for becoming a Christian and gaining the salvation he was bringing. One was that you believed in your heart. The other was that you confessed with your mouth. That's what I mean be not being exclusive.

Of course, that's not all there is to it, and Jesus also laid out some pretty simple rules of how to live one's life. Knowing that nobody could live a perfect life, Jesus made it simple. One merely had to love God and fellow man with all one's heart. And...when one inevitably failed in this, Jesus would fill in the gaps through his death and resurrection.

The rest is just extension of the two commandments Jesus offered.

Unlike other religions, Christianity offered a simple approach to salvation, based on anonement for human frailty through the sacrifice of Jesus.

Mind you, I'm just laying out the basics, but...they're enough, all by themselves, according to the Gospels, for salvation.

That's what I mean by non-exclusivity. Follow the simple rules of belief and attempting as best as possible to follow those two simple commandments and you gain salvation.

From my understanding, this is the core of Christianity. Arguments about the literality of Genesis, or the endless arguments about grace and works, it all boils down to a couple of basics.

Those two commandments are sufficient, if actually followed, since all others derive from them. It is a marvel of inclusiveness and simplicity.

I hope these ramblings have made my earlier statement a little more clear.

[William Terrell]

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.

Is it one chapter, overview, next chapter details. Or next x chapters, details?

[itsahoot]

Wow, now there was a cogent comprehensive criticism.

And accurate too, glad you noticed.

[itsahoot]

Many serious students of Scripture consider the first eleven chapters of Genesis as non-literalM/i>

Many serious students of Scripture consider the entire Bible as fiction.

[scripter]

I think yours was a great post

In chapter 1, Moses gives us an overview of Creation, and in chapter 2 he fills in the details.

Indeed! It was a common literary device used at the time. To reference some work I did on the subject years ago: In ancient texts there is no stronger indication that only a single document is present than parallel accounts. Doublets, that is two separate stores that closely parallel one another are the very stuff of ancient narrative.

Unfortunately, proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis didn't have access to what we have today. The Documentary Hypothesis started out wrong and went downhill from there. I say that because the starting point they used, that is, using the various divine names for God as source criticism is without foundation. The criteria used is based on misinterpretation, mistranslation, a lack of attention to extra-biblical sources, and today, a lack of attention to modern scholarship.

I'm not sure of the verse, perhaps it's Genesis 2:4, but it really presents a problem for proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis. I say that because this one verse (if I have it correctly) uses the phrase "LORD God." But that's not possible if one author used Yahweh (LORD) and another author used Elohim (God) because the one verse uses both names...

It's all quite interesting...

[zeugma]

"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."

Ya. brings to mind the old hymn, "Oh G-d, Our Help In Ages Past". Relevant line: "A thousand ages in thy sight are like an evening gone."

'tis a hymn I've always liked and makes much sense to me. The Lord is not constrained by either time or space. The bilical story of creation is written as something that can be understood by a people of the desert. Besides, it is beautiful prose.

[Uri’el-2012]

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?

I doubt that he has ever read or understands this view of Creation.

Gerald Schroeder's view

b'shem Y'shua

[MineralMan]

"Ya. brings to mind the old hymn, "Oh G-d, Our Help In Ages Past". Relevant line: "A thousand ages in thy sight are like an evening gone.""

---

An excellent example. Thanks. Sadly, that hymn is not as much in use as it once was.

[zeugma]

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.

True. How the universe(s) was actually created is something that I find to be facinating, but of not real consequence to my faith. Is it really more miraculous that G-d could create the universe we see in 6 days or that His act of creation was actually 15 billion years ago, when he spoke The Word, and the universe sprang from a BigBang (let there be light) with the physical laws and properties we have become familiar with. Those same physical laws that allow and perhaps guarantee the creation of Life, to keep Him company?

If you would like to see the handiwork of a awesome, powerful, and artistic G-d, click here. In the linked image, which covers an incredibly tiny spot of the heavens, every single point of light and smudge you see is a galaxy. I find this to be truely awe inspiring.

[MineralMan]

That is, indeed, an amazing photo. I've seen it before and marvelled at what it represents.

Unlike you, I don't attribute this to a deity, but that does not make it any less marvelous. 15 billion years! It is an amount of time that none of us can truly comprehend.

[SuzyQue]

You know, it's funny. I've noticed that the fire-breathing literalists tend to appear at the beginning of these threads, spew all over the place, and quietly disappear as the discussion begins to become more cogent and coherent, and begins to bring in logic and examples.

I don't usually like to criticize the opinions of others, but this is a repeating pattern and it isn't playing fair. If you (not you, MM, but the spewers of opinions) make a statement and someone respectfully asks you questions about it, you at least ought to have the decency to give answers. Not just slink away. It makes people think that you don't have any answers and were just spouting off.

[MineralMan]

That does seem to be the pattern in these threads. I'm considered a Christian-hater by several people on Free Republic, even though I cannot remember ever criticizing Christianity.

There is something about some people that prevents them from understanding that there are those who differ in belief from themselves, but who don't mind that they believe what they believe.

It's too bad. There is a lot of very interesting discussion here on religious topics. I respect everyone's beliefs, even if I don't share them. I do have a bit of trouble, though, with folks who cannot stand any disagreement. When the name-calling startes, I'm rarely amused.

Thanks for being one of the reasonable people in these threads.

[hosepipe]

Ping. Interesting discussion on the NON metaphorical content of Genesis.. Interesting on how the human condition can miss the obvious.. as usual.. Amazing how when presented with "its raining cats and dogs", many run to the window to watch pets falling to the ground.. in essense..

[itsahoot]

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

2Ti 4:3* For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;