Exploring personal discoveries, experiences and decisions
Sunday, October 07, 2007
If Genesis is false, what about the fall of man?
Since contradictions show that the Genesis account of creation is untrue, why should we believe Genesis concerning the fall of man?
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Before you say Genesis contradicts itself,(which I find presumptious on your part seeing that many highly educated people don't share your view). Take the creation for example; you should be aware that Creationists have several different views of the creation events, each that harmonize with the Genesis record. Read about these in my post where I specifically address this issue. http://thefundidriveby.blogspot.com/2007/09/gap-theory-of-creation.html
R Hoeppner: If it is presumptuous on my part because many highly educated people differ from me, why is your view not presumptuous on your part, since many highly educated people don't share your view? I am aware the creationists have different views of the creation events, but their views cannot harmonize with Genesis if Genesis does not harmonize with itself. The question here is, how does the particular contradiction I mention harmonize and, given any particular explanation, what can we then make of the rest of Genesis?
R Hoeppner: I read your article, "The Gap Theory of Creation", and feel that none of the three views of creation you present there can be shown to harmonize with both the Bible and science.
The Gap Theory is problematic for a number of reasons. The problem you mention - that death was in the world - I feel is not completely answered by the answer you mention. It could not just have been Lucifer who brought death into the world because clearly God intended at least some form of death to exist prior to the fall, given that he gave plants to people for food, and therefore plants had to die. This in itself does not prove the story of the creation and fall makes no sense, but it does raise a big question.
But there is at least one other problem with the gap theory. Nothing in the text suggests that the gap in time existed, nor that we should take verses 2 onwards as anything other than an explanation of the process of creation introduced in verse 1 - especially when we understand that myths are written to explain things rather than to create more mysteries.
A further problem is that the entire "primeval" creation prior to verse 2, which your description of this view explains as "complete in itself", would have to have existed in darkness unless God removed all light and/or stars (I include the "and" because the early verses of Genesis treats light and stars as separate) and then recreated them later, as in Gensis. This seems especially implausible considering that verse 1 mentions the "heavens" when writers in Moses' day, not to mention ours, would have understood "the heavens" as something with stars in it.
But the crux is that there is simply nothing to suggest such a gap existed except the need to argue that Genesis is, in some sense, true, rather than a myth. It seems much more plausible that Genesis is like the dozens of other creation stories that come from ancient history - a myth which should not be considered historically true.
The age-day theory and the 24-Four Literal Six-Dayhas problems that you are clearly reasonable enough to admit, and I agree with them.
Would you consider it correct if I see your own view, which combines an old and new earth interpretation, as essentially a version of the gap theory? I see it as attempting to explain that the "desolate" (or "formless and empty", NIV) state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 could not have been the initial state of God's created earth because an understanding of the Hebrew behind "desolate" gives the state of the earth a negative connotation that is inconsistent with God's nature unless it came about through the judgement upon the earlier "primeval creation" that you mention in reference to the gap theory.
The problem with this is that it appears the word does not need to imply a negative connotation. And further, even if the new earth did initially have a "desolate" state, this is no problem for the Bible's view of God's nature and the usefulness he gives created things, because the immediate context shows that he was not finished yet unless we invent the gap theory in the first place. Indeed, when the Bible says he was finished, God even calls it "good" and the Bible gives us plenty of reason to see why it was. There is simply no need to account for a negative connotation upon "desolate" in Genesis 1:2.
3 comments:
Before you say Genesis contradicts itself,(which I find presumptious on your part seeing that many highly educated people don't share your view). Take the creation for example; you should be aware that Creationists have several different views of the creation events, each that harmonize with the Genesis record. Read about these in my post where I specifically address this issue.
http://thefundidriveby.blogspot.com/2007/09/gap-theory-of-creation.html
R Hoeppner: If it is presumptuous on my part because many highly educated people differ from me, why is your view not presumptuous on your part, since many highly educated people don't share your view? I am aware the creationists have different views of the creation events, but their views cannot harmonize with Genesis if Genesis does not harmonize with itself. The question here is, how does the particular contradiction I mention harmonize and, given any particular explanation, what can we then make of the rest of Genesis?
R Hoeppner: I read your article, "The Gap Theory of Creation", and feel that none of the three views of creation you present there can be shown to harmonize with both the Bible and science.
The Gap Theory is problematic for a number of reasons. The problem you mention - that death was in the world - I feel is not completely answered by the answer you mention. It could not just have been Lucifer who brought death into the world because clearly God intended at least some form of death to exist prior to the fall, given that he gave plants to people for food, and therefore plants had to die. This in itself does not prove the story of the creation and fall makes no sense, but it does raise a big question.
But there is at least one other problem with the gap theory. Nothing in the text suggests that the gap in time existed, nor that we should take verses 2 onwards as anything other than an explanation of the process of creation introduced in verse 1 - especially when we understand that myths are written to explain things rather than to create more mysteries.
A further problem is that the entire "primeval" creation prior to verse 2, which your description of this view explains as "complete in itself", would have to have existed in darkness unless God removed all light and/or stars (I include the "and" because the early verses of Genesis treats light and stars as separate) and then recreated them later, as in Gensis. This seems especially implausible considering that verse 1 mentions the "heavens" when writers in Moses' day, not to mention ours, would have understood "the heavens" as something with stars in it.
But the crux is that there is simply nothing to suggest such a gap existed except the need to argue that Genesis is, in some sense, true, rather than a myth. It seems much more plausible that Genesis is like the dozens of other creation stories that come from ancient history - a myth which should not be considered historically true.
The age-day theory and the 24-Four Literal Six-Dayhas problems that you are clearly reasonable enough to admit, and I agree with them.
Would you consider it correct if I see your own view, which combines an old and new earth interpretation, as essentially a version of the gap theory? I see it as attempting to explain that the "desolate" (or "formless and empty", NIV) state of the earth in Genesis 1:2 could not have been the initial state of God's created earth because an understanding of the Hebrew behind "desolate" gives the state of the earth a negative connotation that is inconsistent with God's nature unless it came about through the judgement upon the earlier "primeval creation" that you mention in reference to the gap theory.
The problem with this is that it appears the word does not need to imply a negative connotation. And further, even if the new earth did initially have a "desolate" state, this is no problem for the Bible's view of God's nature and the usefulness he gives created things, because the immediate context shows that he was not finished yet unless we invent the gap theory in the first place. Indeed, when the Bible says he was finished, God even calls it "good" and the Bible gives us plenty of reason to see why it was. There is simply no need to account for a negative connotation upon "desolate" in Genesis 1:2.
Post a Comment