May

22

Personal reflections on the Genesis creation account

May 22, 2008 |

Posted by ben hind · Filed Under Current Issues in Theology, Creation/Evolution, General Discussion 

This is (kind of) a response to Michael Patton’s post on R.C.Sproul and his position on the creation/ID/evolution debate. I thought you might like to know some of my thoughts on the issue.

Having been brought up in a very strict literal-6-day-24-hour-young-earth-creationist church (a bit of a mouth-full), I can’t say I’m unbiased. Of course, neither can you. We all have biases. I have heard good arguments for and against most positions, and even better arguments for and against whether it matters or not. This is an issue I don’t think we can have much certainty on. But I think it’s good to discuss and think about.

I think it’s fair to say that a plain reading of the text doesn’t seem to teach in any way the accommodating theories that people come up with. The ‘gap theory’ has a problem with the fact that the passage doesn’t explicitly state or imply there was a gap of time between verse 1 and 2. The ‘day-as-a-long-period-of-time theory’ (just because I couldn’t think of a proper name!) has a problem because the days are said to have ‘morning then evening’, this obviously appears to be a 24-hour period. And even if you want to say there were gaps of time between each day, that also isn’t explicitly stated or implied. It would have to be us reading our own presuppositions into the text, ‘eisegesis’.

Not that reading presuppositions into a text is wrong necessarily, so long as the presuppositions are correct and help to better understand a text. I think that too much of this is wrong, trying to make the text say something it just doesn’t say. This is where I get most frustrated! When is it right to read our own presuppositions into the text? Where do we draw the line?

That being said, however, I do think it could be true that a gap of time could be between verses 1 and 2. As it seems that genesis verse 1 refers just to God generally creating, and verse 2 God starting to give the earth shape and fill it. Though this isn’t explicitly stated or implied. Some translators/commentators think that verses 1 and 2 are the same sentence with an ‘and’ in between, so no room for a gap… just to complicate things! ;)

As for believing that the creation account is God re-making the earth, I haven’t given it much study or thought. I do think this could have happened, though from reading the genesis account it seems as though God is making things for the first time. You’d be doing ‘eisegesis’ again, reading your own presupposition into the text. I haven’t heard of any good scientific or biblical arguments for this theory. Though I’m sure someone might have come up with something!

Something that I learnt from Rob Bell’s ‘Everything is Spiritual’ (though I’m not sure how reliable Rob Bell’s comments are as I haven’t done any of my own research into it) is that there were other creation stories around when genesis was written. It was written by Moses (?) before or after the exodus out of Egypt, where lots of different creation stories were. This historical context points towards the purpose (or authorial intent) of the creation account. For example, it contains an ethical model of creating 6 days, and resting on the 7th, giving an example to the hebrews to follow the sabbath, as this is what God did. This was because in Egypt you worked 7 days a week being a slave, and so God wants to teach them to rest, just as He did.

The intention of Moses writing could also be to give a hebrew understanding of the origins of the universe being God, rather than the gods of Egypt in their own accounts of creation, to protect the hebrews from lapsing into polytheism. Some of the other accounts, for example, teach more of a barbaric war between the different gods and the earth being a result of that. One purpose of the genesis creation account, then, would be to counter that belief and show how God creates the world out of a free choice, because of His creativity, joy and love.

Whether or not it was written simply as a ‘good moral story’ as God setting an example is debatable. I do think that this was at least one of the intentions. Some would argue that it is not necessarily meant to be taken as literal history, if the author was not intending to write literal history. The problem I have with not taking it as literal history is, ‘when does genesis start to become literal history?’. It’s like Pandora’s box! There doesn’t seem to be any clear indication on where the moral story starts and when the literal history begins. Where you draw the line would become completely subjective. Wouldn’t it?

So here’s what I think I’ve concluded for myself…

I am completely open to others opinions on the genesis creation account, and don’t see any view on it as essential for salvation or orthodoxy. Though each view has implications.

When backed into a corner and asked to make a decision on it, based solely on exegesis, I would opt for a young earth, literal 6 day approach.

When backed into a corner and asked to make a decision on it, based solely on a scientific approach, I would opt for a moral story, Intelligent Design approach.

When backed into a corner and asked to make a decision on it, based upon everything I know, I wouldn’t have a clue.

I don’t think it has to be taken as literal history necessarily, as I think the main intent of the author was to communicate a moral message; the sabbath, combating alternative creation stories, etc.

Nice start to the bible though, eh?

What say you? What are your views on the Genesis creation account, and why do you hold them? And how much does(n’t) it matter to you?


Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

FireStats icon Powered by FireStats