I can accept that God could use Evolution as a method of creating the world. I can accept a literal garden, which isn't effected by evolution (no really, it isn't). What I can't accept is that God used evolution as his creation method and then gave the world an account of the creation that so clearly differs in so many places from the therory of evolution. I know that you will say that the creation story is intended to be poetic or metaphysical etc, but even poetic lisance doesn't seem to account for the great discreptioncy between what is apparently fact and the Biblical describtion. So how do you, as a TE explain this?
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How do TEs inteperate Chapter 1?
- Thread starter theotherguy
- Start date
- Status
Marshall Janzen
Formerly known as Mercury
This is a bit long, but it explains some of the reasons why I don't think Genesis 1 rules out what science has discovered.
Partial pictures
The Bible contains descriptions of many things we can't comprehend -- things that are beyond human experience. To explain the unexplainable, Scripture tends to use many pictures, none of which are complete, but each of which explains certain things.
For instance, the Bible gives many pictures of God. Here's some of them:
As another example, Jesus uses three parables to explain why he has come to seek and to save the lost. Luke 15 contains the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost (or prodigal) son. None of the pictures is totally accurate by themselves (for instance, God can be in more than one place at a time, unlike the shepherd who needs to leave his 99 sheep to go after the lost one) but put together they paint a more complete and accurate picture.
Genesis 1 vs. 2
Finally, getting to the point, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25 give two stories of the creation of the world. Trying to merge the two into one literal account is as ridiculous as trying to merge the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son into a single story, or of merging the descriptions of God as fire, spring, shepherd, warrior, and bird into a single figure. The two creation accounts are not contradictory, but rather they give different halves of a whole. If the two halves could neatly fit together into a single literal story, there would have been no reason to separate them in the first place.
The first account starts with primordial waters overwhelming an earth that is "formless and void" (Gen. 1:1-2) while the second starts with primordial ground in need of rain (Gen. 2:4-5). The first puts man's creation at the end while the second has man created first before the plants have grown or animals have been formed (unless you read it from the NIV, which tries to smooth over the difference with the animals; this is clearer in more word-for-word translations such as the NASB, KJV, NKJV or ESV). In the first God tells the humans to rule over the other creatures and subdue the earth; in the second man is placed in the garden to "work it and take care of it". The first portrays God creating mainly by speaking; the second has God forming Adam from dust and breathing life into him. Similarly, the first portrays God (Elohim, the Hebrew generic name for God) as above his creation while in the second God (Yahweh, the Hebrew personal name for God) walks in the garden with Adam and Eve.
Many people explain away these differences by taking one account or the other as less literal. Generally, the first account is taken as authoritative and the second is just used to add further detail to the sixth day. When there's an apparent contradiction (such as the plants already existing by this time in the first account but not being there in the second), the first chapter is taken literally and the second is adjusted to fit.
My approach is to take both accounts as two sides of a coin. Either account would lead to misinterpretations if the other is excluded from consideration. For instance, the first account stresses God's transcendence, while the second stresses God's immanence. The first shows God's sovereignty as creation takes place in highly ordered and structured days, while the second focuses on God's providence, with things being created in response to needs (man to till the ground, woman as a helper for man). The first stresses how humanity is created in God's image with dominion over the earth, while the second stresses that we came from dust and have an duty to take care of the world. Industrialists may prefer the first account while environmentalists prefer the second, but by taking both together we find balance.
It is not a matter of contradiction. Most of the differences are so plainly obvious that it is the height of arrogance to think we've only noticed them now. They were as evident when the accounts were written down as they are now. They are presented side by side, which is a pretty good clue that the writer of Genesis wasn't disturbed by their differences. Consider two proverbs in the Bible that are often given on Bible contradiction web sites: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself" and "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes". What the contradiction web sites try to minimize is where the proverbs are found: Proverbs 26:4-5 -- in other words, they are back to back! Obviously the compiler of Proverbs was well aware that these two proverbs gave different advice for a similar situation, and yet under divine inspiration he had no problem including them both. This was not a flaw he overlooked or some secret that was only discovered by later generations; the proverbs are two sides of the same coin, and so they were placed side by side. There are times when each is relevant, and it is better to keep both in mind than to always use one to the exclusion of the other.
There are other times when the Bible uses multiple accounts quite differently. Jesus' crucifixion is recorded in detail four times, yet we don't see the huge differences between the accounts that we do in creation or in the parables of the lost items. When Samuel/Kings and Chronicles give accounts of Israel's rulers, they select their details in order to fit their individual purpose, but yet the details mesh together. Saul is followed by David who is followed by Solomon in both accounts, and any differences are in minor details such as the exact moment a king died. Most of the details are exactly the same in both accounts (sometimes word for word).
In the creation accounts, by contrast, hardly any details are the same. While both describe God as creating everything, they do it in totally different ways. Somebody who reads Genesis 2:4-25 without any preconceived ideas from the preceding chapter would get a totally different picture of creation than one who tries to reconcile the second chapter to the first. I think we often miss much of what the second account has to say to us because we are only willing to view it through the filter of the first chapter.
Genesis 1's framework
I think God's purpose in Genesis 1 is to establish that he is the only Creator and that he is involved with his creation. He revealed this without giving us the answers to questions we have the God-given ability to answer on our own (even if the answers aren't discovered in our lifetime). Genesis 1 doesn't tell us the shape of the world, and it uses terminology that would be very familiar to those who believed in a flat earth surrounded by water covered by the canopy of the heavens. The account is given from an earth-based perspective, so there is no hint that the earth orbits the sun or is dwarfed in size by the sun. While these may seem to be gross oversights for those who see the text as scientific in nature, it makes sense if you believe that the text is more interested in telling us about God and his relationship to humanity than in spilling all the secrets of how the universe works.
Further, God revealed the indescribable wonders of creation in a way that would make sense to the earliest humans as well as us. Even though I think we know more about the universe now than people did in Moses' day, there are still huge mysteries. Genesis 1 doesn't require an understanding of the immensity of stars or the amazing complexity of plant life. Instead, it tells of a creative act beyond our imagination by using terms we (and earlier humans) can understand.
Probably the most creative act a person can do is to make a story. Whether told orally, acted out on a stage or produced in a movie, a story allows a person to create a universe of their own, populated with the vistas and characters of their choosing. It is a form of creation that is known to virtually all cultures in all times, even though the methods of storytelling change. I think Genesis 1 describes how God created the universe using a structure familiar to any playwright or storyteller. It describes the three sets, or realms, and the three groups of characters that together make up this creation.
The first three days describe the three realms. The first realm (1:3-5) is space (or, the heavens). It is the upper reaches of the sky, higher than the birds. Aside from the sun, moon and stars, all this realm consists of (from an earthly perspective) is a gradual progression between light and dark, day and night.
The second realm (1:6-8) is sea and sky. Picture yourself on a tiny island just big enough to stand on. You're surrounded by the sea in every direction, and above you are only the clouds of the sky.
The third and final realm (1:9-13) is land. Note that this realm is created fully-furnished with all kinds of plants and trees. It, like the other realms, is complete except for the characters who will inhabit it.
The second set of three days describe the three groups of characters who inhabit each realm. First, the characters for space are added (1:14-19). Note that the sun is described as governing the day while the moon governs the night: the personification is natural since these are characters and not mere set dressing like the plants.
Second, the characters are added to the sea and sky (1:20-23). A scientist may wonder why whales and bats aren't created with the other mammals, but the point isn't to scientifically classify the animals. It also isn't classifying them according to worth (if that were the purpose, surely humans would have a day for themselves!). Instead, birds and fish (and bats and whales) are all characters that inhabit the second realm, so they are all created on the fifth day.
Finally, the characters that live on land are created (1:24-31). This includes livestock, bugs, wild animals, and humans.
One thing I like about this interpretation is that everything fits on the right day. In fact, if you moved any one thing to a different day, it wouldn't make as much sense. This view is similar to how this creation account is sometimes divided into three days of forming that correspond with three days of filling, but unlike that view, the creation of plant life on day three isn't a problem. Unlike a literal historical reading, the creation of light first, then plants, then the sun makes perfect sense, and the personification of the sun and moon also makes sense. It also explains why animals span two days while humans are added at the end of day six instead of getting a day of their own.
Overall, Genesis 1 is an account of God's creation explained in terms humans throughout the ages can understand and relate to: a grand play being fashioned with three realms (or sets) corresponding to three groups of characters. It is not intended to explain the mysteries of the universe, but rather to point to the One who created those mysteries.
A parable about condescension
Fredrick asks his mom where babies come from. She gulps deeply as she was not expecting her young child to ask this question for a few years yet, and then explains that when a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they kiss each other a lot and sometimes this makes a baby start to grow in the mommy's tummy.
When Freddy's older, he reflects back on this explanation and realizes how false it was. Kissing has no direct link to conception. But that's not the only factual error: it's also not true that making a baby requires a married couple, or even that the couple needs to love each other. Why did his mom tell him this blatantly false story?
Fred can think of a few reasons. Maybe everything he's learned about sex is actually a clever deception and his mom's story really is literally true. Or, maybe his mom meant something more by "kiss" than its ordinary meaning; after all, the word can also mean an expression of affection through physical contact regardless of which body parts are involved. Or, maybe his mom was just talking about how a couple tends to kiss a lot when they're planning to have a baby, and the statement about a baby starting to grow is just the end result of that plan. But, none of these reasons satisfy Fred. The first seems extremely unlikely. The second and third require his mom to use words in a way he wouldn't reasonably be expected to understand at the time.
Finally, he comes to think that his mom was purposely condescending to him in relating that story. Kissing was a form of intimacy that he was already able to understand and appreciate, and so his mom used that instead of the more accurate description which he would have found baffling and probably a bit scary and gross. While his mom's version wasn't technically as accurate, it better conveyed the spirit of the sexual act. Also, he came to see that his mom was more intent on telling him about how marital love should work than how sex does work. That's why she had said it was between a mom and dad who loved each other.
At the beginning of his questioning, Freddy had wondered why his mom would tell him something that wasn't true. Now, he realized that his mom's story had been true in another way, and the story was even more important than he'd thought. He didn't think his mom was evil for telling him this story, and he didn't discard the other things she'd taught him because of this, or treat everything she said as symbolic and not literal. However, he did come to a greater appreciation of the different ways his mom had communicated with him in order to guide him to adulthood.
Partial pictures
The Bible contains descriptions of many things we can't comprehend -- things that are beyond human experience. To explain the unexplainable, Scripture tends to use many pictures, none of which are complete, but each of which explains certain things.
For instance, the Bible gives many pictures of God. Here's some of them:
- God is Spirit (John 4:24; Psalm 139:7-10).
- God is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 John 4:12).
- God is not a man (Num. 23:19; Hos. 11:9).
- God is a consuming fire (Deut. 4:24).
- God is the spring of living waters (Jer. 2:13).
- God is our shepherd (Psalm 23).
- God is a warrior (Ex. 15:2-3).
- God is a protective mother bird (Psalm 91:4).
As another example, Jesus uses three parables to explain why he has come to seek and to save the lost. Luke 15 contains the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the lost (or prodigal) son. None of the pictures is totally accurate by themselves (for instance, God can be in more than one place at a time, unlike the shepherd who needs to leave his 99 sheep to go after the lost one) but put together they paint a more complete and accurate picture.
Genesis 1 vs. 2
Finally, getting to the point, Genesis 1:1-2:3 and 2:4-25 give two stories of the creation of the world. Trying to merge the two into one literal account is as ridiculous as trying to merge the parables of the lost sheep, coin and son into a single story, or of merging the descriptions of God as fire, spring, shepherd, warrior, and bird into a single figure. The two creation accounts are not contradictory, but rather they give different halves of a whole. If the two halves could neatly fit together into a single literal story, there would have been no reason to separate them in the first place.
The first account starts with primordial waters overwhelming an earth that is "formless and void" (Gen. 1:1-2) while the second starts with primordial ground in need of rain (Gen. 2:4-5). The first puts man's creation at the end while the second has man created first before the plants have grown or animals have been formed (unless you read it from the NIV, which tries to smooth over the difference with the animals; this is clearer in more word-for-word translations such as the NASB, KJV, NKJV or ESV). In the first God tells the humans to rule over the other creatures and subdue the earth; in the second man is placed in the garden to "work it and take care of it". The first portrays God creating mainly by speaking; the second has God forming Adam from dust and breathing life into him. Similarly, the first portrays God (Elohim, the Hebrew generic name for God) as above his creation while in the second God (Yahweh, the Hebrew personal name for God) walks in the garden with Adam and Eve.
Many people explain away these differences by taking one account or the other as less literal. Generally, the first account is taken as authoritative and the second is just used to add further detail to the sixth day. When there's an apparent contradiction (such as the plants already existing by this time in the first account but not being there in the second), the first chapter is taken literally and the second is adjusted to fit.
My approach is to take both accounts as two sides of a coin. Either account would lead to misinterpretations if the other is excluded from consideration. For instance, the first account stresses God's transcendence, while the second stresses God's immanence. The first shows God's sovereignty as creation takes place in highly ordered and structured days, while the second focuses on God's providence, with things being created in response to needs (man to till the ground, woman as a helper for man). The first stresses how humanity is created in God's image with dominion over the earth, while the second stresses that we came from dust and have an duty to take care of the world. Industrialists may prefer the first account while environmentalists prefer the second, but by taking both together we find balance.
It is not a matter of contradiction. Most of the differences are so plainly obvious that it is the height of arrogance to think we've only noticed them now. They were as evident when the accounts were written down as they are now. They are presented side by side, which is a pretty good clue that the writer of Genesis wasn't disturbed by their differences. Consider two proverbs in the Bible that are often given on Bible contradiction web sites: "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself" and "Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes". What the contradiction web sites try to minimize is where the proverbs are found: Proverbs 26:4-5 -- in other words, they are back to back! Obviously the compiler of Proverbs was well aware that these two proverbs gave different advice for a similar situation, and yet under divine inspiration he had no problem including them both. This was not a flaw he overlooked or some secret that was only discovered by later generations; the proverbs are two sides of the same coin, and so they were placed side by side. There are times when each is relevant, and it is better to keep both in mind than to always use one to the exclusion of the other.
There are other times when the Bible uses multiple accounts quite differently. Jesus' crucifixion is recorded in detail four times, yet we don't see the huge differences between the accounts that we do in creation or in the parables of the lost items. When Samuel/Kings and Chronicles give accounts of Israel's rulers, they select their details in order to fit their individual purpose, but yet the details mesh together. Saul is followed by David who is followed by Solomon in both accounts, and any differences are in minor details such as the exact moment a king died. Most of the details are exactly the same in both accounts (sometimes word for word).
In the creation accounts, by contrast, hardly any details are the same. While both describe God as creating everything, they do it in totally different ways. Somebody who reads Genesis 2:4-25 without any preconceived ideas from the preceding chapter would get a totally different picture of creation than one who tries to reconcile the second chapter to the first. I think we often miss much of what the second account has to say to us because we are only willing to view it through the filter of the first chapter.
Genesis 1's framework
I think God's purpose in Genesis 1 is to establish that he is the only Creator and that he is involved with his creation. He revealed this without giving us the answers to questions we have the God-given ability to answer on our own (even if the answers aren't discovered in our lifetime). Genesis 1 doesn't tell us the shape of the world, and it uses terminology that would be very familiar to those who believed in a flat earth surrounded by water covered by the canopy of the heavens. The account is given from an earth-based perspective, so there is no hint that the earth orbits the sun or is dwarfed in size by the sun. While these may seem to be gross oversights for those who see the text as scientific in nature, it makes sense if you believe that the text is more interested in telling us about God and his relationship to humanity than in spilling all the secrets of how the universe works.
Further, God revealed the indescribable wonders of creation in a way that would make sense to the earliest humans as well as us. Even though I think we know more about the universe now than people did in Moses' day, there are still huge mysteries. Genesis 1 doesn't require an understanding of the immensity of stars or the amazing complexity of plant life. Instead, it tells of a creative act beyond our imagination by using terms we (and earlier humans) can understand.
Probably the most creative act a person can do is to make a story. Whether told orally, acted out on a stage or produced in a movie, a story allows a person to create a universe of their own, populated with the vistas and characters of their choosing. It is a form of creation that is known to virtually all cultures in all times, even though the methods of storytelling change. I think Genesis 1 describes how God created the universe using a structure familiar to any playwright or storyteller. It describes the three sets, or realms, and the three groups of characters that together make up this creation.
The first three days describe the three realms. The first realm (1:3-5) is space (or, the heavens). It is the upper reaches of the sky, higher than the birds. Aside from the sun, moon and stars, all this realm consists of (from an earthly perspective) is a gradual progression between light and dark, day and night.
The second realm (1:6-8) is sea and sky. Picture yourself on a tiny island just big enough to stand on. You're surrounded by the sea in every direction, and above you are only the clouds of the sky.
The third and final realm (1:9-13) is land. Note that this realm is created fully-furnished with all kinds of plants and trees. It, like the other realms, is complete except for the characters who will inhabit it.
The second set of three days describe the three groups of characters who inhabit each realm. First, the characters for space are added (1:14-19). Note that the sun is described as governing the day while the moon governs the night: the personification is natural since these are characters and not mere set dressing like the plants.
Second, the characters are added to the sea and sky (1:20-23). A scientist may wonder why whales and bats aren't created with the other mammals, but the point isn't to scientifically classify the animals. It also isn't classifying them according to worth (if that were the purpose, surely humans would have a day for themselves!). Instead, birds and fish (and bats and whales) are all characters that inhabit the second realm, so they are all created on the fifth day.
Finally, the characters that live on land are created (1:24-31). This includes livestock, bugs, wild animals, and humans.
One thing I like about this interpretation is that everything fits on the right day. In fact, if you moved any one thing to a different day, it wouldn't make as much sense. This view is similar to how this creation account is sometimes divided into three days of forming that correspond with three days of filling, but unlike that view, the creation of plant life on day three isn't a problem. Unlike a literal historical reading, the creation of light first, then plants, then the sun makes perfect sense, and the personification of the sun and moon also makes sense. It also explains why animals span two days while humans are added at the end of day six instead of getting a day of their own.
Overall, Genesis 1 is an account of God's creation explained in terms humans throughout the ages can understand and relate to: a grand play being fashioned with three realms (or sets) corresponding to three groups of characters. It is not intended to explain the mysteries of the universe, but rather to point to the One who created those mysteries.
A parable about condescension
Fredrick asks his mom where babies come from. She gulps deeply as she was not expecting her young child to ask this question for a few years yet, and then explains that when a mommy and a daddy really love each other, they kiss each other a lot and sometimes this makes a baby start to grow in the mommy's tummy.
When Freddy's older, he reflects back on this explanation and realizes how false it was. Kissing has no direct link to conception. But that's not the only factual error: it's also not true that making a baby requires a married couple, or even that the couple needs to love each other. Why did his mom tell him this blatantly false story?
Fred can think of a few reasons. Maybe everything he's learned about sex is actually a clever deception and his mom's story really is literally true. Or, maybe his mom meant something more by "kiss" than its ordinary meaning; after all, the word can also mean an expression of affection through physical contact regardless of which body parts are involved. Or, maybe his mom was just talking about how a couple tends to kiss a lot when they're planning to have a baby, and the statement about a baby starting to grow is just the end result of that plan. But, none of these reasons satisfy Fred. The first seems extremely unlikely. The second and third require his mom to use words in a way he wouldn't reasonably be expected to understand at the time.
Finally, he comes to think that his mom was purposely condescending to him in relating that story. Kissing was a form of intimacy that he was already able to understand and appreciate, and so his mom used that instead of the more accurate description which he would have found baffling and probably a bit scary and gross. While his mom's version wasn't technically as accurate, it better conveyed the spirit of the sexual act. Also, he came to see that his mom was more intent on telling him about how marital love should work than how sex does work. That's why she had said it was between a mom and dad who loved each other.
At the beginning of his questioning, Freddy had wondered why his mom would tell him something that wasn't true. Now, he realized that his mom's story had been true in another way, and the story was even more important than he'd thought. He didn't think his mom was evil for telling him this story, and he didn't discard the other things she'd taught him because of this, or treat everything she said as symbolic and not literal. However, he did come to a greater appreciation of the different ways his mom had communicated with him in order to guide him to adulthood.
Upvote
0
Very good analysis, Mercury.
What I would add is that you MUST consider the culture that was first telling, then writing the accounts. They simply did not view their writing of history the same way we do now. Nobody was seriously attempting to write history AS accurate historical narrative until Herodotus, and even he did not bother with accuracy in every instance.
At 2,000 BC, the Ancience Neareast cultures told their stories about the past using figurative literary presentations. They used symbolism, typology, poetry (and/or poetic frameworks, like described above and chiasms, etc), to tell about the events of the past. Providing the literal historical details was not even part of the goal. They would have essentials that they needed to convey and they told those essentials in the most powerful and evocative methods available to them. This is proven by the simple fact that many accounts of the past written by cultures during these times were often contradictory in the details in the same culture. They would tell stories side by side that could not possibly BOTH be literal historical narrative, since the "facts" would contradict each other. But they still considered both accounts entirely TRUE. This is proof that they did not consider them literal factual accounts. And the two Creation accounts happens to be a very good example of this. If these were not contained in our Scripture, and were presented to any fundamentalist today, they would say that, without doubt, they contradict each other in the facts.
But they are not false stories, they are not "incorrect" or "mistaken" or full of errors. These stories accurately an inerrantly present the messages they were meant to portray.
It is only to our modern minds (and as an historian, modern can mean hundreds and hundreds of years) that we tend to read such texts as attempts at literal history.
We don't know exactly HOW or WHEN God created, but we know He did, that He brought order out of chaos, that He created purposefully, that He created in an organized manner, that He created Man in His image (not His physical image, of course), etc.
We don't know what actual events occured that are related by the Garden and Fall story, but we know that God wanted Man and Woman to compliment each other, wanted Man to have dominion (responsibility) over the planet, wanted to commune with Man personally and intimately, Man gave into the temptation of selfishness and disobedience, thus losing communion with God, and suffering spiritual death, which is separation from that communion with God that we can only retain through an act of redemption.
Now, really, is it really important for us to know the exact historical details of the events, or to know these essential truths about the events?
What I would add is that you MUST consider the culture that was first telling, then writing the accounts. They simply did not view their writing of history the same way we do now. Nobody was seriously attempting to write history AS accurate historical narrative until Herodotus, and even he did not bother with accuracy in every instance.
At 2,000 BC, the Ancience Neareast cultures told their stories about the past using figurative literary presentations. They used symbolism, typology, poetry (and/or poetic frameworks, like described above and chiasms, etc), to tell about the events of the past. Providing the literal historical details was not even part of the goal. They would have essentials that they needed to convey and they told those essentials in the most powerful and evocative methods available to them. This is proven by the simple fact that many accounts of the past written by cultures during these times were often contradictory in the details in the same culture. They would tell stories side by side that could not possibly BOTH be literal historical narrative, since the "facts" would contradict each other. But they still considered both accounts entirely TRUE. This is proof that they did not consider them literal factual accounts. And the two Creation accounts happens to be a very good example of this. If these were not contained in our Scripture, and were presented to any fundamentalist today, they would say that, without doubt, they contradict each other in the facts.
But they are not false stories, they are not "incorrect" or "mistaken" or full of errors. These stories accurately an inerrantly present the messages they were meant to portray.
It is only to our modern minds (and as an historian, modern can mean hundreds and hundreds of years) that we tend to read such texts as attempts at literal history.
We don't know exactly HOW or WHEN God created, but we know He did, that He brought order out of chaos, that He created purposefully, that He created in an organized manner, that He created Man in His image (not His physical image, of course), etc.
We don't know what actual events occured that are related by the Garden and Fall story, but we know that God wanted Man and Woman to compliment each other, wanted Man to have dominion (responsibility) over the planet, wanted to commune with Man personally and intimately, Man gave into the temptation of selfishness and disobedience, thus losing communion with God, and suffering spiritual death, which is separation from that communion with God that we can only retain through an act of redemption.
Now, really, is it really important for us to know the exact historical details of the events, or to know these essential truths about the events?
Upvote
0
Its the days that really stump me. I mean, why couldn't the ancient Hebres understand the concept of millianes of years or the correct order of creation?
Upvote
0
Marshall Janzen
Formerly known as Mercury
Why would they need to? Certainly God could have communicated the correct timeline and order of creation if he wanted to. He could have also communicated how immense the rest of the universe was compared to Earth, and the shape of Earth, but it seems that he didn't find it important to convey that knowledge.theotherguy said:
He communicated what he wanted to communicate through the Bible, and gave us a brain, a divine likeness, and a mandate to have dominion over creation so that we could over time discover many other mysteries ourselves.
To me, that seems a lot more loving than a Creator who would make such an awe-inspiring creation and then spoil all the secrets of it before we managed to discover them ourselves using our God-given gifts.
Upvote
0
But then why would he give us an account that would lead to the damaging arguements of today? That's where the TE arguement seems to fall down.
Upvote
0
Alchemist
Seeking in Orthodoxy
Hi theotherguy,
Living in a culture where science is seen as true and pure, and allegory and metaphor are seen as false and corrupted, it is really quite difficult to understand the creation account as anything other than literal. But as Vance and Mercury have pointed out, the Jews in their time did not see metaphor, or allegorical texts as "bad" or "untrue", but read deeper into the meaning of the text, the "why" more than the "what". We must remember that the Bible was not written directly for us, but to for the ancient Jewish culture, which had a much different understanding of literature and the Bible than we commonly do today.
You write:
The thing is, damaging arguments only really arise when we interpret the Bible in a strictly literal way. They did not arise for the Jews; they did not take the text literally. Likewise, many in the early Christian church did not have a problem with a non-literal interpretation. It is only really in the last 150 years, due to the increase of "rationalist" philosophy (i.e. if you can't explain it by science - in other words, without including God - then it isn't "true") that Christians have demanded so vigorously that if Genesis is not read literally, that the Bible is being misinterpreted, which is really sad
. If the Jewish people to which God originally wrote did not have a problem with metaphor and allegory, why do we?
As Mercury points out, assuming evolution happened, God surely could have explained it to them in a way they could understand. But if He did, it would have distracted them from the main point of creation: that God did it, that He created us for a purpose, and that we disobeyed Him and sinned. Sometimes it is just easier, and more appropriate, to say it in a poetic way - after-all, it is known in the Jewish culture that people actually sang Genesis 1! A poetic text three chapters long that can sum up creation, our relationship with God, the Fall, and the state of the world - without distracting the audience with scientific explanations - and one suitable for liturgical purposes? I think I could write a report for biology, but I know for a fact that I could ever write a work of literature that beautiful...
Peace,
Nick
Living in a culture where science is seen as true and pure, and allegory and metaphor are seen as false and corrupted, it is really quite difficult to understand the creation account as anything other than literal. But as Vance and Mercury have pointed out, the Jews in their time did not see metaphor, or allegorical texts as "bad" or "untrue", but read deeper into the meaning of the text, the "why" more than the "what". We must remember that the Bible was not written directly for us, but to for the ancient Jewish culture, which had a much different understanding of literature and the Bible than we commonly do today.
You write:
"But then why would he give us an account that would lead to the damaging arguements of today? That's where the TE arguement seems to fall down."
I think the issue is that there shouldn't be damaging arguments today. Although it makes sense for us, in our rationalist world, to interpret the creation account as facts and figures, the Jews would have never done this. Surely, much of the Bible was factual history; the 4 books of Kings (1 & 2 Samuel + 1 & 2 Kings) are good examples of this. However, as Mercury points out, the creation account was not. We can see this also in the writings of early Christian church theologians, who never doubted that Genesis was a symbolic, more than a historical text.
The thing is, damaging arguments only really arise when we interpret the Bible in a strictly literal way. They did not arise for the Jews; they did not take the text literally. Likewise, many in the early Christian church did not have a problem with a non-literal interpretation. It is only really in the last 150 years, due to the increase of "rationalist" philosophy (i.e. if you can't explain it by science - in other words, without including God - then it isn't "true") that Christians have demanded so vigorously that if Genesis is not read literally, that the Bible is being misinterpreted, which is really sad
. If the Jewish people to which God originally wrote did not have a problem with metaphor and allegory, why do we?As Mercury points out, assuming evolution happened, God surely could have explained it to them in a way they could understand. But if He did, it would have distracted them from the main point of creation: that God did it, that He created us for a purpose, and that we disobeyed Him and sinned. Sometimes it is just easier, and more appropriate, to say it in a poetic way - after-all, it is known in the Jewish culture that people actually sang Genesis 1
! A poetic text three chapters long that can sum up creation, our relationship with God, the Fall, and the state of the world - without distracting the audience with scientific explanations - and one suitable for liturgical purposes? I think I could write a report for biology, but I know for a fact that I could ever write a work of literature that beautiful...Peace,
Nick
Upvote
0
Maccie
Well-Known Member
alchemist said:It is only really in the last 150 years, due to the increase of "rationalist" philosophy (i.e. if you can't explain it by science - in other words, without including God - then it isn't "true") that Christians have demanded so vigorously that if Genesis is not read literally, that the Bible is being misinterpreted, which is really sad
Exactly. And it is only an issue in the USA. And the USA is not the world. You do really have to believe that!
True, I think we forget sometiems the OT was written for the Jews.
Upvote
0
The fact that there are disputes about interpretation is not an argument either way, theotherguy. When has there EVER been agreement about Biblical interpretation? We would not have hundreds of denominations if God intended it all to be crystal clear.
Upvote
0
theotherguy said:
I'd be interested in how the chronology of the creation, even as a myth/story, of the earth (day 1), moon and sun (day 4), works out so evolution can be biblically supported. Even read allegorically it's backwards. If evolution is correct then scripture is wrong.
Upvote
0
Marshall Janzen
Formerly known as Mercury
Are either Luke 4 or Matthew 4 wrong because they give different orders for Jesus' temptation?PotLuck said:
My view is that there are literary reasons for the order in Genesis 1. The first three days relate to the second three days, and I explained how I think they correspond in my first post in this thread. If there are literary reasons for the order, there's no reason for the order to also be a literal chronology. It could be, but it doesn't have to be for Scripture to be right.
Another sign that the days aren't a literal chronology is that the same event occurs on both day 1 and day 4: the separation of light and darkness (Genesis 1:4, 18). That is a one-time event (assuming the separation did not come undone), so it would appear that days 1 and 4 are somehow linked.
Upvote
0
MercuryMJ said:
That follows very closely to mormon doctrine. It may even give them more evidence of the terrestrial,telestial and celestial kingdoms. They teach each being "populated" later by those with differing degrees of righteousness. They borrow "The New Jerusalem" for proof of an earthly reward ans exaltation for a more heavenly hereafter. Somewhat akin to the three kingdoms of creation. Check their reasoning of that by the scripture they extract from the bible to support it.
Mormonism's three degrees of glory
Upvote
0
Marshall Janzen
Formerly known as Mercury
Huh? I know next to nothing about Mormon doctrine, but since I didn't say anything about terrestrial, "telestial" and celestial kingdoms, about the only connection I see is that I mentioned three scenes, or realms. However, all three realms I was describing are part of the physical creation. All three were populated by God during the second set of three days in the creation week. I didn't mention "three degrees of glory", but rather three separate realms that God formed and filled with inhabitants. So, according to what you posted, it would seem that what I outlined is in direct contradiction with what Mormons believe.PotLuck said:
Further, it's not exactly revolutionary to notice structure in the days of Genesis 1. My NIV Study Bible has a chart with the two sets of three days lined up beside each other, although the details of their arrangement is a bit different than mine. Most commentaries on Genesis 1 point out the double-triad structure of the six days -- even if they still take the chronology of the days literally.
To say that you're reaching by trying to connect this with Mormonism is an extreme understatement.
Upvote
0
1) Space
2) Heaven
3) earth and plants
4) Sun and moon
5) Animals
6) Man
Light is not only what we can see but all radiations even those we can't see. Gravity fits here too I think. All the building blocks to make a universe. But the "light" refered to isn't the same as the life-giving warmth of infrared and ultraviolet emitted from the sun needed to maintain warmth for the earth and cause photosynthesis.
My NIV Study Bible has a chart with the two sets of three days lined up beside each other
That's what's throwing me off. They must be depicting it differently than just 1-4.. 2-5.. 3-6
2) Heaven
3) earth and plants
4) Sun and moon
5) Animals
6) Man
Light is not only what we can see but all radiations even those we can't see. Gravity fits here too I think. All the building blocks to make a universe. But the "light" refered to isn't the same as the life-giving warmth of infrared and ultraviolet emitted from the sun needed to maintain warmth for the earth and cause photosynthesis.
My NIV Study Bible has a chart with the two sets of three days lined up beside each other
That's what's throwing me off. They must be depicting it differently than just 1-4.. 2-5.. 3-6
Upvote
0
Marshall Janzen
Formerly known as Mercury
Yes.PotLuck said:
1. Light, called day separated from darkness, called night
... 4. Luminaries made to separate day/night, etc.
2. Firmament to separate waters below and above
... 5. Water teems with fish, birds fly in firmament
3. Dry land separated from seas and filled with vegetation
... 6. Land produces animals and humans
Upvote
0
Marshall Janzen
Formerly known as Mercury
In my opinion, you're reading modern science into the text here to make it say things that are more than the author intended.PotLuck said:
I'll try to reproduce their chart here, but because I can't do columns, it won't be quite the same. Their scheme is more complicated than mine:PotLuck said:
Days of forming
1. "light" (v.3)
2. "water under the expanse... water above it" (v.7)
3a. "dry ground" (v.9)
3b. "vegetation" (v.11)
Days of filling
4. "lights" (v.14)
5. "every living and moving thing with which the water teems... every winged bird" (v.21)
6a1. "livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals" (v.24)
6a2. "man" (v.26)
6b. "every green plant for food" (v.30)
As for the columns, 4 goes beside 1, 5 goes beside 2, 6a1 and 6a2 go beside 3a, and 6b goes beside 3b.
Upvote
0
Aw, I see now.
Thanks!
So how long did the plants have to go without sunlight before the sun was created? Or are the days concurrent as mentioned in two "sets"? In other words, there really wasn't any "days" which makes the arguments about the length of a day irrelevant. And "YOM" could be any length of time anyway. Or, none at all.
Thanks!
So how long did the plants have to go without sunlight before the sun was created? Or are the days concurrent as mentioned in two "sets"? In other words, there really wasn't any "days" which makes the arguments about the length of a day irrelevant. And "YOM" could be any length of time anyway. Or, none at all.
Upvote
0
Marshall Janzen
Formerly known as Mercury
Well, I don't think the literary order is the same as the actual order, so I don't think this is a problem the text creates or a question it answers. I don't think God intended to give us an actual blow-by-blow of how he formed the universe. Instead, he's inspired an author to give us an account that makes clear the extent of his creation, counters the beliefs of surrounding cultures, and provides a framework for the work week and Sabbath. All this, and the resulting narrative is highly ordered with carefully-chosen repetition which makes it easy to memorize and share with others.PotLuck said:
To be honest, I have a lot more respect for Genesis 1 now than I did when I thought it was just a rote historical account of what happened. Now that I see all those other things in it, it just seems a bit more inspired.
Yes, that's pretty much the way I see it.
I think there's two questions: what does yom mean within the account, and what does the account as a whole mean. This is similar to asking what sheep mean within a parable, and what the parable is trying to say by using sheep. Of course, sheep within a parable are literal sheep, but the parable may be using them to make a point about humans. Similarly, I think the yom in Genesis 1 are literal solar days within the account, but the days are used to describe the moment (or eons) of creation.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
