A Different Reading of Genesis 1

[United]

I read the following theory in a book some years ago. Unfortunately I can only recall the basic concepts – the original book provided a reasonably detailed analysis of the Hebrew and provided far more detail.

Some time after God breathed “life” into Adam, he explained his creation of the world to him (maybe verbally, as a vision or even a projection onto a screen of sorts). God provided this explanation over a seven "day" period (perhaps the seven days following Adam's creation). Adam subsequently copied down onto tablets all he had seen over each of the seven days. Every time the text reads “And there was evening, and there was morning-the ??? day” it refers to the end of the explanation for that day.

This theory provides a reason for the two creation stories told in Genesis 1 & 2. The first is Gods explanation of creation to Adam, while the second is Adam’s description of what he had seen in his experience.

I guess the above theory is analogous to our description of a TV series. For example we may say that "such and such" was married in the first week, had children in the third week and then died in the fifth week.

I am undecided about the theory, but would be interested in others thoughts – particularly those more familiar with Hebrew.

 

[gluadys]

It's an interesting approach if:

you assume Adam was an individual person
you assume that God gave him visions of the sort described
you assume an unbroken oral tradition from Adam to the writers of Genesis 1 & 2


Personally, I would have trouble with all three of these assumptions.

 

[mhess13]

I have NO trouble with those assumptions and I have heard that theory before and personally lean toward it

 

[Remus]

I read the following theory in a book some years ago.

Any idea what the name of it was? I tried to "google" the subject, but I couldn't think of any keywords that would work.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Any idea what the name of it was? I tried to "google" the subject, but I couldn't think of any keywords that would work.

Days of Proclamation view???

 

[United]

Any idea what the name of it was? I tried to "google" the subject, but I couldn't think of any keywords that would work.

Hi Remus,
I wish I could remember myself - it's been at least 8 years since I read it and I only had it for a couple of days. However, I remember that it wasn't specifically about this topic - it examined a number of bible topics/passages and presented alternative interpretations.

Days of Proclamation view???

I thought the "Days of Proclamation" view was slightly different - God made the proclamations ("let the be light" etc etc) over a seven day period before creation; whereas the above theory refers to God explaining it to Adam over a seven day period after creation.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

check out:
http://www.plim.org/genesisaccount.html

sounds like this idea, but to Moses rather than to Adam

 

[Dak man]

It's an interesting approach if:

you assume Adam was an individual person
you assume that God gave him visions of the sort described
you assume an unbroken oral tradition from Adam to the writers of Genesis 1 & 2


Personally, I would have trouble with all three of these assumptions.

These two I am with you on, I dont doubt that god COULD give those kind of visions, but that an oral story was passed down for possibly thousands of years and kept with its original accuracy is a stretch.

 

[gluadys]

These two I am with you on, I dont doubt that god COULD give those kind of visions, but that an oral story was passed down for possibly thousands of years and kept with its original accuracy is a stretch.

I don't doubt that God could give such visions, either. But it is an assumption pulled out of thin air that he did.

 

[United]

I don't doubt that God could give such visions, either. But it is an assumption pulled out of thin air that he did.

Hi Gluadys,

I think any interpretation of Genesis contains assumptions. Literal or non literal - either way you make an assumption. I personally think a purely poetic interpretation is a bigger assumption, but that is my view and I do not rule it out.

If you choose a loosely literal interpretation, then you can only conclude that God conveyed it to man in some way - most likely by a vision, but maybe by a voice or other inspiration - any of which could be spread out over a seven day period. So I don't really see this as an assumption.

I think your last item is the most important. But your point also makes an assumption - that it had to be passed down by word of mouth. Is there any reason why it wouldn't be inscribed on a tablet or other medium? Even so, there is an assumption that it would need to be preserved for a long period.

 

[Vance]

The historical/cultural background of the area and peoples would argue strongly against a series of writings. These were all oral transmission cultures during these times.

But, really, if God had a desire to maintain the exact wording for its eventual writing, he could do so, or simply inspire the ultimate writer of the exact words. If He instead only wanted to make sure that the important truths were contained and presented in the manner necessary to convey the plan for salvation, He may not have been concerned at all about the exact wording.

Both possibilities are definitely viable. I choose the latter for a number of reasons, and had done so before I even seriously looked into the possibility of evolution.

 

[gluadys]

Hi Gluadys,

I think any interpretation of Genesis contains assumptions. Literal or non literal - either way you make an assumption.

True

I personally think a purely poetic interpretation is a bigger assumption, but that is my view and I do not rule it out.

Matter of opinion. I find it more logical and meaningful.

If you choose a loosely literal interpretation, then you can only conclude that God conveyed it to man in some way - most likely by a vision, but maybe by a voice or other inspiration - any of which could be spread out over a seven day period. So I don't really see this as an assumption.

Well, as we just said, choosing a literal interpretation is itself an assumption. I grant it follows logically that God would somehow communicate the facts, but when you pin it down to one method, then that is an assumption too. We have no information on when and how God communicated the story of creation.

I think your last item is the most important. But your point also makes an assumption - that it had to be passed down by word of mouth. Is there any reason why it wouldn't be inscribed on a tablet or other medium? Even so, there is an assumption that it would need to be preserved for a long period.

rmwilliamsll spoke of a similar scenario with Moses rather than Adam as the recipient of the visions. Moses we know could read and write, so he would have written it down. We cannot make the same assumption about Adam. Writing is a human invention and appears to have developed gradually from pictographs. So, if God gave this information to Adam, oral transmission was a necessity until writing was invented and someone (Moses?) wrote it down.

 

[United]

In another thread, some relevant verses from Exodus were quoted:

(Exo 20:11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

RVincent then explained:

made. Heb. 'asah, to do or make; has a wide variety of applications. This word is used in Gen. 1:7, 11, 12, 16, 25, 26.
But in Genesis 1:1 the word is bara', whose very meaning is not only to create, but that what was created was beautiful. The root, meaning to carve, plane, polish, implies both order and beauty.

To those more fluent in the ancient hebrew:
Is there anything in the Exodus quote which rules out the theory I presented in the original post? RVincent noted that the word made can mean "to do". Could it also mean "to show"?

 

[Micaiah]

Exedus 20
8"Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

The plain teaching of Scripture is that creation took a literal six days, unless of course you do not accept the plain teaching of Scripture...