Narratives of creation

[gluadys]

Razzelflabben & I have had a lengthy discussion of the creation narratives in the bible which, toward the end, focused on the boundaries of narrative. When is something included in the narrative and when is it not?

This led to the following question from razzelflabben:

right and that a single celled population existed is part of the story and so it is valid to ask evolution how it got there in the first place?

In short, if it is valid to include the creation of heaven and earth in Gen. 1:1 as part of the whole creation story, why do evolutionists resist including the creation of life as part of the story of evolution?

The answer is context. As Razzelflabben herself observed many times, Gen.1:1 is an introduction which provides necessary background to the rest of the chapter. We couldn't get the point of the whole story without knowing that in the beginning God created it all. God created the cosmos as a whole as well as the specific features of it.

It is not that one god created the cosmos and other gods did the finishing work as in pagan mythologies, but that the one and only eternal God created it all.

So Gen. 1:1, as introductory, as introducing this basic concept, is vital to the narrative as a whole.

Is the origin of life similarly vital to understanding evolution?

Not at all. We can speculate on many origin of life scenarios. We may consider direct, miraculous creation of one or more early life forms. We may consider totally naturalistic chemical processes of increasing complexity. We may consider some intermediate position of guided abiogenesis incorporating some elements of intelligent design.

Do we need to know which of these is correct to understand evolution? Not at all.

Would evolution look different depending on which scenario is right? Not at all.

Does knowing the background of how life originated add anything to our understanding of evolution? Not at all.

Does not having information about the origin of life keep us from understanding evolution? Not at all.

So, origin of life and evolution of species are indeed separate narratives. The first is not necessary as background information for the second.

 

[hithesh]

This led to the following question from razzelflabben: and that a single celled population existed is part of the story and so it is valid to ask evolution how it got there in the first place?

God did it, that's how it got there in the first place.

Satan did it, that's how it got there in the first place.

Aliens did it, that's how it got there in the first place.

The question of who or what did it, is a question of no consequence to evolution.

But the question of who or what did it, who or what created the heavens and the earth, is question of consequence.

Creationism is not about what took place on the first day, and second day, creationism is about what place from the beginning.

Evolution is about what took place after the beginning, on some other day, after the heavens and the earth were formed, and life was present. Prior is not part of the story. The Genesis story starts from the beginning.

 

[Assyrian]

There are problems translating that first verse.
Is it a complete sentence?
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Or a temporal clause?
In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth-- the earth was formless and void...
or
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and void...
Now I see no reason not to stick with the majority of translators who go for the first option, at least on this issue, but we should bear in mind there are other ways to read it.

I would also say that while Gen 1 tells us God created heaven and earth, it does not tell us how, just as it does not tell us how plants and animals were created.

I do have questions about 'the heavens and the earth' translation. I think it is reading way too sophisticated a cosmology into a very simple narrative. I see it told by nomad to his tribe gathered around a campfire. He stretches out his hands to the hills around them and to the clouds above and tells them God made all this. "In the beginning God made the sky and the land..." We read beyond these words and understand God made the heavens and the earth, the universe and all that is in it. But the text itself simply reads sky and land.

 

[keyarch]

I do have questions about 'the heavens and the earth' translation. I think it is reading way too sophisticated a cosmology into a very simple narrative. I see it told by nomad to his tribe gathered around a campfire. He stretches out his hands to the hills around them and to the clouds above and tells them God made all this. "In the beginning God made the sky and the land..." We read beyond these words and understand God made the heavens and the earth, the universe and all that is in it. But the text itself simply reads sky and land.

I think that before you come to a final conclusion about what is meant by "heaven" in any particular passage, you may want to read my paper on the topic. A similar method can be used to understand "earth".

http://www.genesistruth.org/documents/heaven.pdf

 

[Assyrian]

I think the biggest question for our interpretation of the creation of the heavens in verse 1 is that the following chapter goes on to describe the creation of a firmament God calls 'heavens'.

 

[keyarch]

I think the biggest question for our interpretation of the creation of the heavens in verse 1 is that the following chapter goes on to describe the creation of a firmament God calls 'heavens'.

THE heaven in verse one is different from the heaven (atmosphere) created in verse 6-8. Verse one is not a heading statement. It's an account of what was done prior to the six days of creation of life on earth and verse 1:2 tells us the state the planet was in.

 

[Assyrian]

Yet the sun and moon appear to be embedded in the firmament v17 that you identify with the atmosphere.

 

[laptoppop]

And yet the real problem turns out to not be in Genesis at all, but related to it. Jesus (in context talking about divorce, but still true):
Mar 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, {God} MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mar 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
Mar 10:8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

From the beginning of creation -- within the creation week works just fine -- millions of years later is a problem.

 

[pgp_protector]

And yet the real problem turns out to not be in Genesis at all, but related to it. Jesus (in context talking about divorce, but still true):
Mar 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, {God} MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mar 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
Mar 10:8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

From the beginning of creation -- within the creation week works just fine -- millions of years later is a problem.

Tell me, who made the computer you're using ?

 

[keyarch]

Yet the sun and moon appear to be embedded in the firmament v17 that you identify with the atmosphere.

No, they are in the firmament of the the upper heaven. There are two firmaments. The Hebrew is clear on this. The lower heaven is to the bottom of the clouds (between the waters). Birds can fly in the upper heaven. If you look at the paper I linked to, you should see how it all fits together.

 

[Assyrian]

Where do you get two firmaments?

 

[Assyrian]

And yet the real problem turns out to not be in Genesis at all, but related to it. Jesus (in context talking about divorce, but still true):
Mar 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, {God} MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mar 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
Mar 10:8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

From the beginning of creation -- within the creation week works just fine -- millions of years later is a problem.

Day Six is not the beginning of the week.

Nor does Jesus say from the beginning of the creation of the world. You are reading that into the text. The creation of the human race works just as well, better, when the context is God's plan for human relations, not creationism.

 

[keyarch]

Where do you get two firmaments?

It's the firmament of something.

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

God called this firmament between the two waters "heaven" or basically the lower heaven.

The firmament (or expanse) of THE heaven (upper heaven) already existed, and the sun and moon were placed there.

The "upper heaven" in Hebrew is proceeded by a "particle article" which is first defined in Genesis 1:1.

So the firmament or expanse is dependant on the subject. Like the space between one's ears.

We are told from other passages, that the deep (water 1) was covered with a thick cloud layer (water 2) and when God separated those waters, He called that space, that firmament Heaven. So the lower heaven is confined to that space.

Job 38:8-9 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

 

[laptoppop]

Tell me, who made the computer you're using ?

I don't understand the relevance of the question. I'm actually a hardware/software engineer, so I could go into any level of description, down to the chips, etc. -- but this is hardly the place for it.

Of course, my computer is MUCH simpler than even the simplest cell -- and it required a lot of people to design it and the components. But somehow I'm supposed to believe that the marvelous incredible complexity of creation does not show purposeful design.

 

[laptoppop]

Day Six is not the beginning of the week.

Nor does Jesus say from the beginning of the creation of the world. You are reading that into the text. The creation of the human race works just as well, better, when the context is God's plan for human relations, not creationism.

Compared to 6,000 years, day 6 is the beginning of the creation.

On an evolutionary timescale, humans come millions of years after the beginning of the creation. And no, I don't see it as the "creation" of the human race -- the text says THE creation, and the gradual evolutionary turning of beast into human does not, to me, reflect something that has a solid definable beginning as referred to by Jesus.

 

[pgp_protector]

I don't understand the relevance of the question. I'm actually a hardware/software engineer, so I could go into any level of description, down to the chips, etc. -- but this is hardly the place for it.

Of course, my computer is MUCH simpler than even the simplest cell -- and it required a lot of people to design it and the components. But somehow I'm supposed to believe that the marvelous incredible complexity of creation does not show purposeful design.

Actually your answer works well.
You've got 2 choices when answering that question.
A detailed answer giving how each part is made, what company makes each part, chip, platter, MR head, ect ect ect.
Or just DELL / HP ect...

Genesis is the Dell / HP Explanation.

 

[Assyrian]

It's the firmament of something.

So? There is still only reference to one firmament.

Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Verse 8 we are told God called the firmament Heaven. After God names the firmament heaven, every reference to the firmament in the rest of the creation account calls it 'the firmament of heaven'. This is not another firmament, it is the one God created in verse 7 and called heaven in verse 8.

God called this firmament between the two waters "heaven" or basically the lower heaven.

Actually he calls it 'heavens'. All we can say from the account is that it separated the waters above the firmament from the waters below.

The firmament (or expanse) of THE heaven (upper heaven) already existed, and the sun and moon were placed there.

There is no reference in the account to more than one firmament, which was created in verse 7. From the account it was this firmament, the only one he created in the account, which has the sun and moon placed in it.

The "upper heaven" in Hebrew is proceeded by a "particle article" which is first defined in Genesis 1:1.

What is a 'particle article' and how is it defined in Gen 1:1?

So the firmament or expanse is dependant on the subject. Like the space between one's ears.

Our brains need oxygen don't they? And room for new ideas.

We are told from other passages, that the deep (water 1) was covered with a thick cloud layer (water 2) and when God separated those waters, He called that space, that firmament Heaven. So the lower heaven is confined to that space.

Genesis does not distinguish between 'the heavens' in verse 1, the firmament God called 'heavens' and the 'firmament of the heavens' that birds fly across and in which he placed the sun and the moon. The only difference is the use of the definite article 'the heavens' in the references outside verse 7, but the definite article isn't used in when something is being named.

Gen 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. Even though the text refers to 'the day' and 'the night' in verses 14&16 Gen 1:14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

Even though Genesis uses the earth in both verse 1 God created the heavens and the earth, and to refer to dry land Gen 1:11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation. But when God names the earth it says Gen 1:10 God called the dry land Earth. No article when he names it.

He called the waters Seas verse 10, but then gives man dominion over the fish of the Sea verse 26

Most of the reference to Adam in Genesis contain the definite article and are now usually translated 'the man' eg: Gen 2:20 AV And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. However modern translations put it, ESV The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. But while Genesis usually refers to Adam simply as 'the man', when we look at man being named there is again no article, Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and called their name Adam when they were created.

 

[Assyrian]

Compared to 6,000 years, day 6 is the beginning of the creation.

It doesn't matter if it was 6000 years ago or 14 billion, if you think the world was created in six days, then the beginning of the creation week was day 1 & 2 and the end of the creation was the 6th day when people were made. but you big problem is you are reading the creation of the world into a passage that is talking about the way God created people. Jesus isn't talking about the world. He doesn't mention it. It is interesting the parallel passage in Matthew simply says Matt 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female. If there was any reference to God creating the world, Matthew dropped it out and simply talks about God creating people. But that is all Mark really mentions either, apart from what you read into it.

On an evolutionary timescale, humans come millions of years after the beginning of the creation. And no, I don't see it as the "creation" of the human race -- the text says THE creation, and the gradual evolutionary turning of beast into human does not, to me, reflect something that has a solid definable beginning as referred to by Jesus.

Actually it doesn't have a definite article in the Greek.

You are reading way too much into Jesus' use of a common idiom when the details of the idiom is not what he is talking about. Would you insist on reading the same precise detail when Jesus tells us the Queen of Sheba came 'from the ends of the earth'? The round planet theory does not reflect something that has a solid definable edge as referred to by Jesus. Flat Earth anybody?

 

[shernren]

And yet the real problem turns out to not be in Genesis at all, but related to it. Jesus (in context talking about divorce, but still true):
Mar 10:5 But Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.
Mar 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, {God} MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE.
Mar 10:7 "FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,
Mar 10:8 AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.
Mar 10:9 "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

From the beginning of creation -- within the creation week works just fine -- millions of years later is a problem.

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began ...
(2 Timothy 1:8-9 ESV)

Did we exist "before the ages began"? Or did God decide to give us His own purpose and grace "before the ages began", no matter when we actually existed?

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness, in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God our Savior ...
(Titus 1:1-3 ESV)

Did we exist to receive promises "before the ages began"? Or did God make promises to us "before the ages began", that came into effect for us when we came into His family?

He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
(Matthew 19:4-6 ESV)

Why does Matthew not mention what beginning Jesus refers to?

And Jesus said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."
(Mark 10:5-9 ESV)

1. Does the Bible tell us which "creation" is "beginning" here? Since Jesus refers exclusively to man, is it not at least self-consistent to assume that Jesus refers to the creation of man?
2. The Bible clearly describes divine decisions made before the beginning of creation, even though those decisions could only clearly come into effect when their participants began to exist. Could God not have decided to make man male and female long before He actually did?
3. Will you take the rest of the passage literally as well? The last I checked, husbands and wives normally have two different bodies with different DNA, cheesy sci-fi flicks notwithstanding. "One flesh" is a metaphor. Why not "the beginning of creation"?
4. Jesus in this passage rebukes literalism and repudiates the moral authority of a commandment in the Torah. If even a moral guideline in the Torah, which was after all a moral codebook, was not infallible but was given subject to the social norms of the time, what does that say about the supposedly scientific facts of the Torah, which is after all not a scientific textbook?

 

[Assyrian]

Your 'before the ages began' is an interesting take on this. One of the references in the NT where 'beginning of creation' comes up (απο δε αρχης κτισεως in Mark 10:6) is η αρχη της κτισεως του θεου in Rev 3:14 These things says the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God OR ...who is the origin of all that God has created OR ...the Head of the creation of God.