Book: B'resheet AKA:Genesis Author: Moses. Date: 1400-1200 B.C. Approximately 3,400 years old.
In the Beginning. These words are so iconic. It's amazing that everybody knows what follows these words. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The three building blocks of the universe. Time (beginning) space (heavens) and mass (earth.) It is interesting to me that the bible presents space, time, and mass as coming to existance at the same "time."
Now, today, somebody asked me "what was God doing before he created the world?" and I remembered what St. Augustine said, and quoted it to them, and we all laughed. St. Augustine said in response to this question "preparing hell for those who pry into mysteries." What happened before Genesis 1? Nobody knows
Now, there are some who are disturbed by Genesis 1 because it presents things that as far as we know, are not scientifically true. For example, the earth comes into existence after the moon and the sun. But I would like to introduce a few things about Genesis 1. The first is that it is a poem. It is a wonderful peice of poetry. In the hebrew it rhymes, and follows a poetic structure. Each section is finished with "it was evening, and it was morning, the ___ day." It's interesting that the absence of the moon and the sun do not stop Moses from writing about mornings and evenings. Now, let's pay some close attention to what is being said in the text, and how the text unfolds.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was FORMLESS and VOID." (I just want to point out that in Hebrew "Formless" and "Void" rhyme. "Tohou va bohou.") So, there are two problems. 1) There is no place for things to be. and 2) there is nothing to put in that place, if that place existed.So the first 3 days of creation God creates the FORM first, and then in the next 3 days he fills the VOID. The first three Days, God creates the Sky, the oceans and seas, and the land, over the next three days, God creates the birds (to fill the sky) the fish and the large sea animals (to fill the sea) and then the animals and vegitation. And the last thing that God makes is mankind, but there is something very different about mankind. Then on the seventh day he rests.
From the NRSV "Then God said "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image // In the image of God created he them // Male and Female created he them."
I think that this is perhaps one of the most important scriptures in the bible. It informs us of our duty, our relationship with God, and our relationships with eachother. Environmentally, we should care about the earth. We should not litter or do things that damage our planet. We should try to work with the earth in a symbiotic way, instead of basically raping it for resources the way we do now. We should be concerned about the ethical treatment of animals. We should not endorse dog fighting / cock fighting or any of these cruel things.
Theologically, we need to understand that each and every one of us is created with the express purpose of being a representative of God's nature to the whole creation. When the creation sees us, they are seeing what God is like. So let's try to make sure the universe knows that God is good. Sociologically, we are not meant to be alone. We are most complete in a family unit. The male and the female both represent certain aspects of God's character and attributes, and those charicteristics and attributes are most clearly seen in a good marriage. Concerning this, C.S. Lewis writes;
"There is hidden or flaunted, a sword between the sexes till an entire marriage reconciles them. It is arrogance in us to call frankness, fairness, and chivalry 'masculine' when we see them in a woman; it is arrogance in them to describe a man's sensitiveness or tact or tenderness as 'feminine.' But also what poor, warped fragments of humanity most mere men and mere women must be to make the implications of that arrogance plausible. Marriage heals this. Jointly the two become fully human. 'In the image of God created he them.' Thus, by a paradox, this carnival of sexuality leads us out beyond our sexes."
Genesis 2 is a "zoomed in" look at day 6. In Genesis 1, the impression is given that man and woman were created at the same punctillar point of time, whereas Genesis 2 shows that Adam (he's given a name) and Eve were created on the same day, but Eve was created with an additional purpose at a later point in the day. In essense, Adam was lonely. Every other creature had a mate, but he didn't. So God makes the woman from Adam's very own flesh. And when Adam sees her, he bursts out with a poem in typical Disney Prince fashion. "This at last is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken." (In hebrew there is a word play. Man is Ish (prounounced eesh) and woman is Ishah.) Adam then names the woman. He names her Eve (which in hebrew means Life.) Now the additional purpose that Eve was created for was to be Adam's help. What can I say? I'm incomplete without my wife. And I think most married men would say that as well. There is something about a woman that gives a man a sense of purpose and drive, what a special creation women are!
Also, a stage is set. There is a sense of joy, but also a sense of forboding in the text. There are two trees in the Garden. The tree of life, if it was eaten, it would make the person immortal, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God warns Adam to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. One could wish that the text just ended there. "The man said okay, and lived happily ever after with his wife in the garden of eden for all of eternity. The End." But sadly it doesn't.
 |
| Destruction from disobedience |
To the serpent: he lost his legs, and will forever eat dust. Also, the day would come, when a woman will have a child, and that child will crush the head of the serpent. (This is believed to be the fist prophecy of the coming Messiah by Jews and Christians alike.) To the woman: She would have pain in childbirth, and there would be a battle between the sexes starting here. The woman would seek to control her husband, and the man would rule over her. To the man: The earth itself was cursed, and he would toil trying to make things grow, but to no avail. It would become hard to get food from the ground. God kicks them out of the garden to keep them from eating of the tree of life. For if they were to eat from the tree of life, they would live forever. Paradise Lost.
Hey Garrett, I read in your post that you believe that the creation account is poetry and I have a question, do you believe that the creation account in Genesis is historically factual and accurate?
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is true, in the sense that Moses believes that it was true. Poetry can be true without being entirely factual.There's a difference between truth and fact.
DeleteWould you elaborate on what you mean by that?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean to ask is do you believe the Genesis account is a factual account of creation? and a follow up question would be, if you do not, then why do you not believe that it is a factual account? In short I'm asking what you believe and how you came to your conclusions. - I'm curious. :)
ReplyDeleteVery good questions. Let me address them as I go, and there will be a bit of personal background as well.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first became a Christian, I was a big fan of Kent Hovind. I subscribed to the Hovind theory. Which is very fundamentalist. The Bible is God's word. God meant what he said. That's what the text says, so I believe it. Amen. And for a long time, that was the way I read the Genesis account.
When I took Science and Creation with Roy Fisher, that was when I started to doubt the Hovind Theory. In that class we read two books. The first being "Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel, and the other was a written debate called "The Genesis Debate."
In the Genesis Debate there were four views presented on Genesis 1-2. The first was the fundamentalist 7, 24 hour day, creation view. They believed that God's word was true in all matters of faith and practice, and they felt very strongly that to deny a 7, 24 hour day creation account was tantamount to denying the Gospel. They were very serious about this.
Then there were the Day Age people. That God created the world in 7 periods of time, 7 stages, and each stage could have been 1,000 years or more. (They got this from the scripture that refers to 1,000 years to man being like a single day to God.)
Then there were the "Gap Theory" people. Those who believe that the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 could be translated "and the earth BECAME formless and void." And so to them, there was the first creation, marked from Genesis 1:1, where God created the heavens and the earth, and then there is a several billion year gap, between Genesis 1:1-1:2, where there is a pre-adamite rebellion, where Satan is kicked out of heaven, and the earth is destroyed in a war, and God re-creates the earth in Genesis 1:2-2:4.
Now those last two didn't make any sense to me. It all seemed like a bunch of conjecture, with no real textual basis, whatsoever.
And then there was what is called "The Framework View" and that is that Genesis 1, is true, but not factual. Moses' point in writing Genesis 1-2 is not to give a step by step process of how God created the world, but rather to give a thematic and theological point.
Now, they pointed this out by addressing the structure of Genesis 1-2:4, the places where it rhymes, and comparing it to other ancient near-eastern literature. Now, I found this to be the most sound textual argument I had ever heard. It was exegetical, it was historical, and it was non-contradictory. It did not compell me to believe that evenings and mornings could still exist without a sun and a moon, but rather it forced me to accept the Bible for what it is, and for what it is not. It is not a science textbook.
Now, when I took Hebrew, I actually translated Genesis 1, and I was amazed to see how beautifully it was written. No English translation can really do it justice. There are so many rhymes, so many word plays, and so much structure, that it was impossible for me to hold to the 24 hour 7 day creation theory.
So, do I believe that the Genesis 1-2:4 account to be factual? No. No I do not. Do I believe it to be true, in so far as the message it is trying to convey? Yes. Most definitely.
Yahweh is God. Not the sun, not the moon, not the stars, not the Ocean. Yahweh is God. And He is sovereign. He speaks, and it happens. Nothing can resist His will. He creates all by the sheer power of his will, and he it is his will that man would reflect His glory to the whole world.
I see you've done homework :), what I'm gathering as your reason for not believing that the Genesis account is factual is that it was written in a poetic form. Though, from my understanding, there are many factual truths in the Bible written in poetic form. Like 1 Timothy 3:16 for example, I understand this to be a hymn, though it still conveys very deep factual truths. In the same way I believe that the Genesis account, though it may be written in poetic form, can still convey factual truths.
ReplyDeleteNot just that it's poetic, but also because it's illogical.
ReplyDeleteFor example: The sun and the moon are not created until day 4. Yet, there have been 3 sets of "evening and morning." But how does one measure "morning and evening" without a sun and moon?
If you say "well, I believe it because the Bible says it" you haven't actually come to any reasonable or rational conclusion from the text.
Let's look at Genesis 1:3-5
ReplyDeleteGenesis 1:3-5
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
It seems to me that there was a light and a darkness which existed outside of any star, and I would think that they used this light and darkness to measure a morning and an evening.
Also, I want to point out that the Bible mentions a time in the future where we will have light without a sun as stated in Rev. 21:23, Rev. 22:5, and Isaiah 60:19. - The Lord will be the light.
Just as God will supernaturally provide light to His people in the future, I believe God supernaturally provided light and darkness, evening and morning without a sun and a moon in the first three days of the Genesis account.
I think that is an overly literal interpretation to the book of Revelation. Also, you said "I think they used this light...to measure...morning and evening." Who is they? If God, why does he need to measure morning and evening? Another way of translating that could be "There was Chaos, and there was Order." See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.
ReplyDeleteWhen one considers that much of the creation epic is centered on ordering chaos, and how this compares to other Ancient Near Eastern literature, I think that you may see a correlation.