Genesis - Actual history or not?

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I view Genesis as two conflicting accounts, Not by Chance, and her is my reasoning.



When we approach the study of Scripture, I think we should be willing to step outside the small box of narration presented within the narrow confines of fundamentalist thinking about the Bible. In so doing, we must cast aside the preexisting bias that everything in Scripture has to be true, that everything happened just the way the Bible says it happened. We should approach Scripture, with an open mind. Maybe it is all dictated by God and inerrant , maybe it isn't. Let us see.



Bearing the above in mind, let us proceed on to the Genesis account of creation. It is readily apparent that it stands in stark contradiction to modern scientific accounts. If we stay within the confines of the fundamentalist box, science is clearly a thing of the Devil, and that's the end of it. But is it? Perhaps there are other possibilities. Let us also explore those. For centuries, solid Bible-believing Christians have had no problem in recognizing the Bible is not an accurate geophysical witness. After all, who believes that the earth is really flat, that everything revolves around the earth, etc.? So I don't see why Genesis should be any exception. Bur wait a sec. Just how did traditional Christianity manage to step out of the fundamentalist box here? Here it is important to consider the writings of the Protestant Reformers, who lived right on the scene, right at the time when science was beginning to serious question the flat earth, etc. Let's take a peak at Calvin, for example. He followed what is called the doctrine of accommodations. Accordingly, our minds are so puny that God often has to talk “baby talk” (Calvin's term) to us, to accommodate his message to our infirmities. He wrote a major commentary on Genesis, and, in his remarks on Gen. 1:6, he emphasized that God is here to accommodate to our weaknesses and therefore, most emphatically, is not here to teach us actual astronomy.



Now, about the to contradictory accounts. It is my position that we must step outside the fundamentalist box and come to the text open-minded. It is my position that there are two contradictory accounts. It is my position we must resist all the fiendish effects created within the narrow confines of the fundamentalist box to unduly smash them together and bludgeon them into one account. The best way to approach a text is to go on the plain reading. Hence, in Gen . 1, first animals are created, the man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. What may or may not be apparent in English translations is that there are two very different literary styles here. Gen. 1, fr example, is sing-songy, very sing-songy. Hence, Haydn wrote a major work titled

“The Creation,” based solely on Gen. 1. Gen,. 2 is narrative and not very singable. If you study the Hebrew here in more detail, we are also dealing with to different authors coming from tow different time periods.



Let's turn to the stated content of the chronologies. As I said, a plain reading shows an obvious contradiction here. And as I said, many a fiendish attempt has been made within the fundamentalist box to smash these together. That is a favorite tactic of mode than one online self-styled apologists and also certain members in this group, no personal insult intended. So let us now go down through a list of the major devious attempts to smash the texts together and why they don't work.



There is the pluperfect theory. Accordingly, all apparent contradictions can be easily explained simply by recognizing that everything in Gen. 2 should be translated in the pluperfect tense, thereby referring right back to one. So the line should read,...So God HAD created the animals,,,” So the problem is simply generated in the reader's mind simply because the English Bible has been mistranslated here. To a lay person, this might look impressive. However, if you know anything at all about Hebrew, this solution immediately falls on its face. There is no, repeat no, pluperfect tense in Hebrew.



There is the two-creation theory. Accordingly, Gen. 1 and 2 refer to two different creations. Gen. 1 describes the total overall creation of the universe. Gen. 2 is purely concerned with what happened in the garden of Eden, with events that happened after the total overall creation. Looks promising. However, what is snot shown or addressed in the fundamentalist box is the fact fact this theory generates treffic problems in accounting for all the personnel involved and, in so doing g, has led to ridiculous results. A good example is the Lilith theory that was widespread among Medieval Christians and Jews. The problem was this: If we are fusing these accounts together, then there is a woman created in Gen. 1, and at the same time as Adam, who is not named, and who obviously exists in addition to Eve. Who is she? Her name is Lilith and she is Adam's first wife. She was domineering and liked riding on top of Adam when they had sex. Adam didn't like this and neither did God, as women are to be submissive. So God gave Adam a second wife, Eve, who at least stayed underneath during sex. Lilith then got mad, ran away, became a witch, and goes around terrorizing children, so that it was common to find a crib with “God save up from Lilith” written on it. Now, unless you believe in the existence of preAdamites, and the fundamentalist box does not and most Christians do not either, then this whole situation is absolutely ridiculous.



There is the latent-chronology theory. Accordingly, the account is written by one author, never mind the literary differences. What he takes as the real chronology is that which is presented in Gen. 1. However, when he gets to Gen. 2, he for some reason, does not work through or explicate that chronology in its true order. Well, by that same token, why not assume his rue chronology is gen. 1 and that Gen. I is just his idea of explicating it out of order, for some reason? See, that strategy backfires. In addition, one wonders why an author would set up his chronology on one page and then on the next explicate it out of order. That sure is an awkward, messy way of explaining yourself.



Now if any of you readers have in mind a better solution, I and other biblical scholars would like to hear it.



Another problem with the Genesis account is that it does not make it clear how God creates. Some will say it definitely means creatio ex nihilo. But God created Adam out of dust, not out of nothing. God created Eve out of Adam's rib, not out of nothing. God creates the adult out of the child, not our of nothing. The opening of the Genesis account is ambiguous here. Maybe god creates out of nothing, but maybe out of some preexistence chaos.
 
Upvote 0

Kersh

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2016
804
386
46
Michigan
✟24,645.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Isn't there a clue in this passage?
"Gen 2:8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
Gen 2:9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Doesn't this suggest that God had already prepared the garden, including all the plants and animals as in Genesis 1 and that He now created the man and put him in the garden to take care of all He had created? If so, doesn't this resolve the apparent conflict? Or is there something I am missing?
I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I notice that the majority of English translations use the past tense (ie., God planted, God made) in these verses. A couple of translations (mainly the NIV) use the past perfect (i.e., God had planted, God had made). I could be wrong, but it looks like this is an attempt to subtly correct an apparent contradiction. A more reasonable reading, in my opinion, would be to read the two stories as allegories, so there is no need to "correct" any contradictions.
 
Upvote 0

2KnowHim

Dying to Live
Feb 18, 2007
928
276
✟9,953.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Bible says no such thing.
BTW, how did all the plant life survive a thousand years of darkness?
Beyond that, the chronology of creation doesn't fit even pretending thousand year days.

Of course it does, you just read it...if you don't see it then I can't help you there.

You asked ..."how did the plant life survive a thousand years of darkness"
Again your thinking carnally, naturally....God's Word is Spirit and Life.

The darkness in Gen. 1 is talking about the darkness in mankind, not literally the lack of the Sun.

kho-shek'
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

There is only one man that the bible tells us this entered into the world by, and that man was Adam, not an angel, not a serpent, but a man.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Not only that but in Isa.. we are told.....
Isa_46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

So ...if you want to know the End, then you have to go back to, (and Understand) the beginning.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

What is a plant "Before" it is in the earth? ....SEED
What is an herb of the field "Before" it grows?.....SEED
What is The Word of God?....SEED
Gen 1. is in SEED form.

He who has an ear, hear what The Spirit sayeth.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course it does, you just read it...if you don't see it then I can't help you there.
No, it says a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. You have to read the whole verse. You also have to read Exodus 20:11. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." That doesn't mean that the Sabbath comes every thousand years.
You asked ..."how did the plant life survive a thousand years of darkness"....
The darkness in Gen. 1 is talking about the darkness in mankind, not literally the lack of the Sun.
Man didn't exist until day six and the sun didn't until day four. It references an evening and morning; one revolution of the planet illuminated by a singular source of light. This light becomes the sun, moon and stars on day four and "light" is never again mentioned as a singular entity.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, but that was an undefined time after man's creation. It could not possibly be the indication of darkness, and it could not explain "the evening and the morning" in describing the days.
Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
This is one instance when Yowm is used as a time period, not a singular day. As in the "days of Noah" is another such reference. However, in the Scriptures when used with an evening and morning or when indicated by a number such as day 5, yowm always means a singular day.
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
I don't do fractions.
Genesis 2: 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
This is not a creation account, but the beginning of the story of man. There was at first no vegetation, but God created it and watered it with a mist from the ground. This happened before Adam was created. God placed Adam in the garden of Eden which he had planted. Assuming that was the original placement of the newly created man, it means that Eden had been created prior to the creation of man.
 
Upvote 0

2KnowHim

Dying to Live
Feb 18, 2007
928
276
✟9,953.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There is no sense in continuing this discussion with you.
You and I are on two different pages. You view things in the natural, literal sense, I view all things through The Spirit and The Finished work of Christ.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Blessings in your search for Truth.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
69
✟39,806.00
Faith
Non-Denom
No, it says a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. You have to read the whole verse. You also have to read Exodus 20:11. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." That doesn't mean that the Sabbath comes every thousand years.

Man didn't exist until day six and the sun didn't until day four. It references an evening and morning; one revolution of the planet illuminated by a singular source of light. This light becomes the sun, moon and stars on day four and "light" is never again mentioned as a singular entity.

Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, but that was an undefined time after man's creation. It could not possibly be the indication of darkness, and it could not explain "the evening and the morning" in describing the days.

This is one instance when Yowm is used as a time period, not a singular day. As in the "days of Noah" is another such reference. However, in the Scriptures when used with an evening and morning or when indicated by a number such as day 5, yowm always means a singular day.

I don't do fractions.
Genesis 2: 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.
This is not a creation account, but the beginning of the story of man. There was at first no vegetation, but God created it and watered it with a mist from the ground. This happened before Adam was created. God placed Adam in the garden of Eden which he had planted. Assuming that was the original placement of the newly created man, it means that Eden had been created prior to the creation of man.
This is my understanding of the creation account as well, but it seems that it is only one of many different interpretations. One thing is clear, the topic of our origins arouses great passion amongst those who take an interest in such things. This is true both within the Jewish/Christian religions but also between those religions and secular science. I guess everyone likes to think they have the truth, but since there can only be one truth, that inevitably means that the one who thinks he has the truth must think that everyone who disagrees has to be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is my understanding of the creation account as well, but it seems that it is only one of many different interpretations. One thing is clear, the topic of our origins arouses great passion amongst those who take an interest in such things. This is true both within the Jewish/Christian religions but also between those religions and secular science. I guess everyone likes to think they have the truth, but since there can only be one truth, that inevitably means that the one who thinks he has the truth must think that everyone who disagrees has to be wrong.
I would agree with that.
Jesus taught about the accuracy of the Bible.
Jesus taught creation, not evolution.
Jesus was there.
I believe Jesus.
 
Upvote 0

Kersh

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2016
804
386
46
Michigan
✟24,645.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Goodness me, I feel a headache coming on! I think I'll be on safer ground if I just carry on accepting the simple view of what the text seems to say, as otherwise I may end up in endless debate like the good folks here.

Although I personally tend towards the view that the Bible creation narrative is not literal, I also think that, at the end of the day, it has really become just one more thing to argue about. At the end of the day, it does not affect my life or my walk with Jesus one iota, if the Earth if billions of years old and the universe was created over billions of years or if the entire universe was created in a week about 6000 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RedPonyDriver
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No, you should keep at it, Not by Chance. Studying the Bible in any real depth is no simple matter. Simple religion for simple-minded folks. If you want to live on the surface, OK; but if you really want to enrich yourself, then you have to jump into some stormy waters.
 
Upvote 0

2KnowHim

Dying to Live
Feb 18, 2007
928
276
✟9,953.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Exo_12:4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.
Exo_16:18 And when they did mete it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating.
 
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Yes, you are overlooking something important, Not by Chance. In Gen. 2, no animals are created until after Adam is created and God decides he needs companions. Since Hebrew has no pluperfect tense, you cannot refer the creation of the animals back to Gen. 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2KnowHim
Upvote 0

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Gen. 2 cannot be a further explication of Gen.1 Cgvaria, as it gives a contradictory chronology? In Gen. 1 first animals, then man and woman together; in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. Also, the l literary styles of the two accounts are radically different. Gen. 1 is probably written much later than Gen. 2.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
69
✟39,806.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Yes, you are overlooking something important, Not by Chance. In Gen. 2, no animals are created until after Adam is created and God decides he needs companions. Since Hebrew has no pluperfect tense, you cannot refer the creation of the animals back to Gen. 1.

I'm not sure I understand. How do they express ideas in Hebrew for which we would use the pluperfect if there is no such tense in their language? Also, is it not possible that ancient Hebrew could have been different in this respect; after all, languages change a lot over time?

Gen. 2 cannot be a further explication of Gen.1 Cgvaria, as it gives a contradictory chronology? In Gen. 1 first animals, then man and woman together; in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. Also, the l literary styles of the two accounts are radically different. Gen. 1 is probably written much later than Gen. 2.

Could it not be that Moses used different sources when compiling his accounts of the creation and that that is why there are some superficial differences between the two chapters? I still favour the idea that they are both referring to the same creation event, with Chapter 1 being the overall summary and Chapter 2 giving more detail about the creation that God had just completed, particularly with respect to Adam and his wife Eve. I think that people are maybe looking for problems where none exists. Is that not a possibility?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
69
✟39,806.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Yes, you are overlooking something important, Not by Chance. In Gen. 2, no animals are created until after Adam is created and God decides he needs companions. Since Hebrew has no pluperfect tense, you cannot refer the creation of the animals back to Gen. 1.

I'm not sure I understand. How do they express ideas in Hebrew for which we would use the pluperfect if there is no such tense in their language? Also, is it not possible that ancient Hebrew could have been different in this respect; after all, languages change a lot over time?

Gen. 2 cannot be a further explication of Gen.1 Cgvaria, as it gives a contradictory chronology? In Gen. 1 first animals, then man and woman together; in Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman. Also, the l literary styles of the two accounts are radically different. Gen. 1 is probably written much later than Gen. 2.

Could it not be that Moses used different sources when compiling his accounts of the creation and that that is why there are some superficial differences between the two chapters? I still favour the idea that they are both referring to the same creation event, with Chapter 1 being the overall summary and Chapter 2 giving more detail about the creation that God had just completed, particularly with respect to Adam and his wife Eve. I think that people are maybe looking for problems where none exists. Is that not a possibility?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
69
✟39,806.00
Faith
Non-Denom
I don't know why but my last post has been duplicated. I got an error message when I made the first attempt to post,telling me I had to wait at least 14 seconds. So I waited and tried again, with the same result. I didn't think either attempt had been successful, but it seems they both were. Confusing.:scratch:
 
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
647
Home
✟21,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I believe Genesis is history. The 1st chapter of Genesis is attested by Moses and by God, who in the law says "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

The second chapter of Genesis is much disputed. Some say that the Hebrew reads "had formed" in regard to all the animals. Others say "formed." But either way, it would certainly not be impossible for God to form animals that he had already created out of the ground specifically to bring before Adam.

Additionally, where Genesis 1 accounts for all of creation - from matter itself to the earth and all creatures that fill it - Genesis 2 speaks only of the creation of man, and of God forming each kind of creature from the ground.

Some believe that Genesis 2 is an account from early, pre-Abrahamic traditions that was passed down, while Genesis 1 was specifically revealed to Moses (who compiled the Pentateuch, and authored portions of it himself). But God Himself testifies to the accuracy of Genesis 1 in the law.
 
Upvote 0

nomadictheist

Alive in Christ
Feb 8, 2014
775
647
Home
✟21,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course it does, you just read it...if you don't see it then I can't help you there.

You asked ..."how did the plant life survive a thousand years of darkness"
Again your thinking carnally, naturally....God's Word is Spirit and Life.

The darkness in Gen. 1 is talking about the darkness in mankind, not literally the lack of the Sun.

kho-shek'
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

There is only one man that the bible tells us this entered into the world by, and that man was Adam, not an angel, not a serpent, but a man.
Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Not only that but in Isa.. we are told.....
Isa_46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

So ...if you want to know the End, then you have to go back to, (and Understand) the beginning.

Gen 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Gen 2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

What is a plant "Before" it is in the earth? ....SEED
What is an herb of the field "Before" it grows?.....SEED
What is The Word of God?....SEED
Gen 1. is in SEED form.

He who has an ear, hear what The Spirit sayeth.
By one man sin entered the world. But the Bible tells us that the devil has been sinning from the beginning. So which is right?

A deeper study will show you that both are right. The devil has been sinning since the beginning. However, he had no power in the world until the man that God made steward over the world decided to disobey God's command, and thus sin entered the world (and death by sin).

But the deeper problem with the "spiritualization" of this is that the Bible says that God caused the earth to bring forth - to literally sprout - vegetation on day 3, which was before He created the sun and the moon (on day 4). This means the plants literally had no sunlight for, well, according to some, thousands or millions of years. (Though light already existed, as that was created on Day 1).
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hoghead1

Well-Known Member
Oct 27, 2015
4,908
741
77
✟8,968.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Ancient Hebrew, Not by Chance, did not have a pluperfect tense; it is not a tense language, to start with. No, I don't think Moses had two earlier accounts. The differences between the two accounts are not superficial. but involve a conflicting chronology and other major differences. In Gen. 1, man is created "high," in the image of the Gods. In Gen.2, man is created low, out of dust. Also, in 2, God is in the singular. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch went out the window in the latter part of the 19th century, in modern biblical studies.
 
Upvote 0