 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 823
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Dr. Van Halen,
I tend to agree with Mojo.
I believe that the Genesis creation account is literal. I also think that it is evident that the intent of the account is not to detail the science of creation but to express truth.
I consider the first verse of Genesis to mean that for a unspecified length of time there existed only the Heaven [singular] and the earth. And the earth was there in heaven during the age when Lucifer began his rebellion. And that the reason God began the way he did is to facillitate teaching. God is teaching all the hosts of heaven as well as the inhabitants of the earth. The earth had been left void of life and light and without form, until the time came to pass when the Lucifer's rebellion spread and the inhabitants of the heaven were caught in the thorny questions raised by the Accuser. God's answer involves using the earth.
He had an audience when he began our creation story. The hosts of heaven are his witnesses. The earth was created at the time of the creation of the heaven so that it would become clear that God was prepared for any eventual rebellion of his willful creatures. He chose the earth to be formless and void to teach that he is the potter and his creation the clay. The earth had been disregarded by the high minded. Satan did not consider it of value. But God chose the foolish and base thing to confound the wise. The waters of the deep had a face. The reason for creating light first is the same reason any workman illuminates his workspace when he begins his task. But there is a deeper reason. God's first word is also his last word on the topic at hand, which is..... truth. Let there be light. By this means God expresses his desire to have light. And it also expresses his desire to have all his creatures to allow light. God wants participation. Lucifer was cause for endarkenment. God will have his way in that there-will be light.
But God being gracious desires to take the time to teach. And the truth is at once simple and yet profound. God divided the light from the darknes because that is the crux of the problem with intelligent and willful creatures. And without darkness there isn't any contrast. A teacher requires contrast till the time come when the student sees the light as it truly is and without need of aids. Remember how Paul informed us that he desired to speak to us as spiritual and not carnal? One day there will be no darkness at all. So God divides the darkness from the light to show the nature of each. Remember that the light while literal is also a representation of truth. The creation we behold today is only a shadow of the glory of God. It has not yet been revealed what we shall be. We see as through a glass darkly. We're not beholding our own face as in a mirror. The man who approaches the bible as a natural man beholds his own face as in a mirror and the bible is to him merely a self help manual. The light was named Day and the darkness was named Night. Thus, throughout the bible these terms will be useful to help us to understand what God means by them. For example Jesus said to Satan, 'This is your hour and the power of darkness'. Jesus said, 'I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh , when no man can work'. God calls these creations night and day before night and day become apparent to any of the witnesses of his creative acts. This reveals that there is a deeper thought involved of which the revealed time periods of night and day only speak about. I will stop here because I could go on and on. But this is discussion. The whole of the bible is written by one God who has indeed sought to explain himself. One thing to always keep in mind however is the truth, that God requires faith. He won't have any other way. He has purposely not written a science text book. And why should he? The creation around us is his textbook to those inclined to read it. As to the literalness of the Genesis account in a scientific way. Consider it to be merely another hypothesis and see if you actually can refute it.
joman |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 9:31 am Post subject: Re: One little nit-picky point |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | God did not write the books of the bible. God inspired the men who wrote the books. We call it God's word because of the belief of in divine inspiration.
I do agree that God refers to himself in the masculine, but I wonder if it is gender (what use of gender for an omnipotent being?) or the traits associated with the male gender. |
But if men wrote the scriptures, men made the decision to have God refer to "him"self in the masculine. Still doesn't mean that God is masculine.
| Quote: | As far as the making of Adam and Eve and the creation of mankind. If the details of Adam and Eve's making were just being explained would not have the versus somehow referred to the first chapter and told us that it was just telling the details? Where else in the bible do we find something repeated (in the same book by the same author)?
Chapter one leaves a possibility that mankind was created before Adam and that possibly Adam was God's improvement on what he had done before, or that his genderless or gender-encompassing creation was a different being althogether from Adam. |
A lot of research has gone into finding out when various books (and parts of books) of the bible were written. One of the findings of this research is that the books in the bible are not arranged chronologically. Among the prophets, for example, the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel are placed before the books of Amos and Hosea although the latter were written earlier. Similarly, Paul's letter to the Romans is place before his letters to the Thessalonians though scholars are virtually unanimous that he wrote to the Thessalonians a decade before writing to the Romans.
A lot of questions such as the ones you raise are clarified when we pay attention not just to the order in which the texts are arranged in the bible, but also to the order in which they were written.
The result of research on dating clearly indicates that the Garden of Eden story was written well before Genesis 1---a few centuries earlier, in fact. But when the different elements of Genesis were put together, the editor(s) naturally put the description we now call Genesis 1 first, since it mostly describes the creation of the universe, while the other story describes the creation of humanity.
But when we remember that it is the second account which was written first, we can eliminate some popular hyptheses.
For example: Genesis 2 is not an attempt to provide a more detailed account of Genesis 1. The writer of Genesis 2 lived and wrote before the writer of Genesis 1, so the Genesis 2 story stands alone on its own merit. It is the author of Genesis 1 who knows the already existing story of Genesis 2 and provides a more detailed "pre-quel" as they say in the movies. And because this writer knows his audience is already familiar with the Genesis 2 story, he doesn't need to recount it in detail, but summarizes it in v. 27.
From this it follows that Genesis 1:27 is not about a pre-Adamic creation, but a summary of the same creation recorded in Genesis 2.
Or to answer your questions more specifically:
"If the details of Adam and Eve's making were just being explained would not have the versus somehow referred to the first chapter and told us that it was just telling the details?"
No, they would not. For at the time the Adam and Eve story was written, there was no Genesis 1 to refer back to. It was not written until at least 2 centuries (and possibly up to 5 centuries) later.
"Where else in the bible do we find something repeated (in the same book by the same author)?"
We don't find repetitions by the same author, but there are many examples throughout the Pentateuch of the same story being repeated as told by different authors. The story of the flood, for example, interweaves two different stories written by the same authors who wrote Genesis 2 and Genesis 1. The story of Abraham preparing to sacrifice Isaac also combines the writings of two different authors. The two stories of Abraham telling the Egyptians that Sarah is his sister, are probably two versions of the same incident as told by different authors.
The decisions about what to include when two different versions of a story existed, and how to place them, were made by the editor(s) who put the Torah together during the Babylonian exile.
Last edited by gbunty on Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:29 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 823
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2004 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dr. Van Halen,
In considering your idea I recognized it's resemblance to my own. I call many of the narratives of the bible 'living parables'.
I would like to share an example that refers, I believe, to the Genesis story of creation.
John 9:3-7.
Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
As long as I'am in the world, I'am the light of the world.
When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay,
And said unto him, Go wash in the pool of Siloam, ( which is by interpretation, Sent.) He went his way therefore, and washed, and came seeing.
The reference to parents is a reference to mankinds parents Adam and Eve. Parents: are the genesis of their children. The blind man is as all mankind spiritually, who being blinded by satan, dwell in the kingdom of darkness.
Jesus', "works" remind us of the "works" of the Father in the Genesis account of creation. The Father rested from all of his labors and sent his only begotten Son to work greater works than those at creation. And Jesus when he finished the work his Father sent him to do rested from all his labor that was on our behalf. Note: Which is harder? To heal a paralytic or to forgive sins? Isn't harder to forgive sin? The sin must be paid for because the sin forgiven involves others who look for justice. So the forgiveness must be justified in accordance with the law. Whereas God can alway create a new body. Therefore, the greater work is to bring spiritual light as opposed to physical light
Jesus walks in the day so all may see his good works. As long as the sun shines upon the earth we have light. But the sun is only a shadow of the truth that, there is a greater light that must shine for men see with an understanding heart.. Jesus is the true light of a new day. Without him we are all blind men. Let the Sun of righteousness arise in our hearts.
The night is coming in which no man can work. But of course God can for we are not children of the night but children of the day. The daily return of night reminds us of the impending darkness that awaits those without oil in their lamps.
The spittle is as the water that was upon the earth in Genesis. The earth was there from the beginning yet, hidden in the darkness that was upon the face of the deep. The blind man was in darkness from his creation. The face upon the waters is Jesus as he looks into the depth of the heart of man. The clay is the instrument of the potter Jesus, even as, was Adam in the day he was formed by God.
God says, 'Let there be light'. Jesus says, 'I'am the light'.
The anointing is as the movement of God's Spirit upon the waters in Genesis. And the anointing of the eyes of the blind man reminds us of God's desire to, ' let there be light', in the heart of man as there is light given by God for the earth.
The washing away of the clay is the cleansing of the man's flesh from off of his soul so that he might see spiritually and not by means of the flesh.
The pool of water that the man is sent to, is named: Sent. This tells us that, when one sent, arrives at his destination and does as sent: then, he is healed. That is: Sent reveals who the sent are. They are the ones who actually arrive as opposed to those who having been sent refuse to go. We christians are sent, even as, Jesus was sent, to do the will of the Father.
The whole of chapter is about the light of understanding which comes by faith in Jesus. And it's real life backdrop is the naturally occurring events that God makes use of in his bibical narrative speak to us about his chosen subject. God used the history of this particular day to expound upon spiritual truths not yet, if ever, perceived by the many participants in the story. I find that all of scripture bears this signature of God .
joman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Van
King Kong
Joined: 19 Oct 2002
Posts: 2646
Location: San Clemente, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2004 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joman, just a note to say I very much enjoyed your insight into the basis for what John included in his book. "Living parables" - very good! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Van Halen
Not So Newbie
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 6
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 08, 2004 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Van,
Thank you for the discussion. I, too, enjoyed it.
MoJo and Joman,
You both have some excellent insight, and I cannot help but agree with much of what you say. I would add, however, that I have a difficult time seeing Genesis as both literal and allegorical/metaphorical. To say that the Creation Account is literal means (or so I've understood) that what is written is what happened. If the Bible says that God created Day and Night before creating the sun, then a literal reading of Genesis must accept that. A literal reading does not leave room for "What God meant here was ..." and "what this really means is ..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
