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?"
the point being missed i beleive is that Genesis as well as all other books of the Bible were were written by man.....but...."Inspired by God". Genisis says exactly what God intended it to say......being God, he could have spelled it out in terms no man would misunderstand or be able to deny.....
God's whole premise for salvation is based on FAITH....not full and complete understanding of how each and every little detail was brought about.
It is man's nature to search for absolute answers.....a nature he gave us by the way.....it is his desire and command that we overcome this and just believe, thru faith.....that's all it takes to enter his kingdom.
becoming bogged down in argueing the details....is it literal?.....is it an anolgy?....is counter productive to his "mission statement" to man.
For me i could care less how he did it......7 literal days.....or 7 million years of evolution....makes no difference...he designed it and put it in place and here we are.
with that said.....for me, if "evolution" is a part/process of creation, it is an even more impressive act by God than his just snapping his fingers and saying....let there be light....
either way.....makes no difference to me.....he said he created us.....period.....how he did it will be an interesting revelation one day when i join him.
"I do have a bit of trouble, though, with folks who cannot stand any disagreement. When the name-calling startes, I'm rarely amused."
**** You hit the nail on the head, that's been my problem. I'm like you, expressive and opinionated, but have back up info...however, it seems to make no difference. Here comes the name calling, cliches', zo forth and zo on....Even if two people disagree, so what? just agree to disagree and move on.....:) It's simple.
Anyway, I have two very good references for anyone interested..I use them for my background. Written by Dr. Hugh Ross who is an Astrophysicist turned Christian. He cites actual principles of space, time, and physics and their application to Christianity....and the Bible....As a suggestion for additional reference.....
"Creation and Time" by Dr. Hugh Ross.
http://www.parable.com/tbn/item_0891097767.htm
"The Fingerprint of God"
http://www.parable.com/tbn/search.asp?searchType=4&criteria=At~Ross,%20Hugh:A1~1
Take a look at the passages and you will see this simple explaination satisfies the straightforwardness of the text. I think what throws people off is the special creation God exhibited for Adam in the naming process. This left no confusion as to who the Creator is for Adam (also significant is the fact that Eve had not been created from Adam yet).
When chapter two begins describing the creation of animals it pertains to the naming process. These animals were created in the Garden of Eden, whilst the others were created outside of Eden as was Adam.
Right. He's very much like The Jesus Seminar, which I've called cutting-edge 19th century radical scholarship. It's as if the last century never happened.
Dan
I do not see two different accounts. I see one account, written twice. One is an overview and one is in detail. I only came to that conclusion after carefully studying scripture passage by passage with study tools, and armed with the knowledge of how stories were written in that time period.
"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 am not here to debate the literality of Genesis. I was only giving an honest answer to a question that was posed. I will not debate it and I am no teacher of Scripture. As far as I'm concerned, it's not open to debate.
I was neither rude to you, nor was I spewing. And as far as not answering you right away...some of us do have children, husbands, and jobs that are of more importance than sitting for hours on end in front of a computer screen debating the literality of the bible and putting down other people.
You've addressed your post to the wrong person. I did not say that Genesis contradicts itself. I'm the one who said that the Genesis creation story is an allegory. I'm sure you disagree with that, too, but it's a different issue.
BTW - allegory? based on what?
"BTW - allegory? based on what?"
Uh, that'd be the fossil record and the knowledge that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It wasn't created and populated with critters, including humans, in 6 days.
What evidence proves that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old?
Dr. Kurt Wise (Ph.D. in Geology)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/isd/wise.asp
Neither the fossil record nor the age of the Earth are proved to support an old Earth. Those statements are as much faith statements as your assertion that there is no God.
You post a link. I'll post a link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
"What evidence proves that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old?"
Do you not have access to Google? Try a search for "age of earth" (no quotes). You'll find hundreds of web pages with the information, along with all the supporting evidence. I am not a geology teacher, nor do I care to be.
The information is there for you. You may choose to read it or not.
The difference is...I'm actually going over to read your link!
"Neither the fossil record nor the age of the Earth are proved to support an old Earth. Those statements are as much faith statements as your assertion that there is no God."
Oh, never mind. You believe whatever you want. That is your right. I don't care what you believe. It affects me not one whit, no more than what I understand affects you.
If you are a Young Earth Creationist, so be it. Please don't apply for a job as a science teacher, though.
"The difference is...I'm actually going over to read your link!"
Actually, there is no difference. I have read your link already. I read it some time ago.
The evidence presented by your author is the Bible. By faith, he rejects all other evidence. That's fine, but it is not science. It is religion.
A pity he has wasted his PhD.
-30-
I thought you said there were several interesting discussions here and that you respect others beliefs, even if you don't agree with them? No one was rude to you (as someone was to me earlier). Keep the discussion thoughtfully going and don't just get angry and throuw in the towel!
"I thought you said there were several interesting discussions here and that you respect others beliefs, even if you don't agree with them? No one was rude to you (as someone was to me earlier). Keep the discussion thoughtfully going and don't just get angry and throuw in the towel!"
My friend, I respect your beliefs. I simply know them to be untrue, so by refusing to debate with a Young Earth Creationist, I am being polite. You are welcome to your beliefs. I do not share them, and I know that you are not going to change them based on information provided to you by me.
So, what's the point? Believe as you choose.
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.