This chapter covers creation of heaven and Earth, and within this relatively short section, I found three interesting points. The Bible claims the Earth was created in six days, God uses the plural forms to describe himself, and he created more than two people. One of these statements seems at odds with what we know to be true in the modern age, another is a lesson for me in humility and the third is different than what I had always been taught.
First up is the creation of the entire universe in six days. When reading this section, I found it to be poetic, as a lot of ancient language is, but once I focused on what was being said, I found a few inconsistencies. The text describes a single being creating existence itself, something that's logically challenging at best. If nothing exists, then where does God fit into that? He must be, by definition, supernatural. That may be stating the obvious, but I think it bears saying, if only to show that creationists want us to accept a model of the universe that includes facets that are, by their very nature, outside the laws of the universe. They also seem to find this comforting, whereas I think it's highly unsettling to consider a being that exists outside the physical laws everything else is compelled to obey. The text also seems to be hampered by a pre-scientific view of the universe, opting for a geocentric view. My specific objection? Night and day are created on the first day, yet the sun and moon aren't created until the fourth. We know now that it's the Earth's rotation that creates night and day, not the Sun and Moon's movements. Based on this alone, it seems to me that we may only ascribe the Genesis creation story the same level of respect as other creation myths, of which, there are many. Of course, as a materialist, I'm more likely to think that the Earth was created roughly 4.5 billion years ago through the process of accreation, a position I believe is supported by current physical evidence such as radiometric dating, but that's just me (and the vast majority of the scientific community).
When I got to Genesis 1:26 (Then God said , "Let Us make man in Our image...), my first thought was, what?! We're not even off the first page, and already God's admitting to being a polytheist?! I had no idea! You see, I had always been taught that Christianity was monotheistic in nature. Once we get to Jesus, we'll have to deal with the whole 'Holy Trinity' business, but this is pre-Christian, Old Testament God, and he's using plural forms? I thought I was on to something. And I was wrong. I did a little basic research, and I found two competing viewpoints. First, and less believable, are those who claim that this is proof of the truth of the Bible, in that it predicts the Holy Trinity over a thousand years before its existence. The second, much more plausible explanation, is that it all comes down to translation. I found this excellent blog entry, which basically explains that "the Hebrew plural is often used for a singular noun to denote "a 'plural' of majesty or excellence"". The author explains his position rationally, and then supports it with numerous citations of others who support the view. I found it to be astute, well-reasoned, and entirely convincing. I also realized that there are going to be times during this project that I may think I've stumbled onto some fresh, new perspective that no one else has ever considered before, and in that view, I am almost certainly mistaken.
Finally, we come to the creation of man. As I was raised Lutheran, we were always taught that God created one man, Adam, and out of his rib, one woman, Eve. It fell, then, for the two of them to populate the Earth, a concept that always nagged at me, even as a child. It needn't have, because had I just read the Bible, it says right there in Genesis 1:26, "Let Us make Man in Our own image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea..." [my emphasis added] It seems pretty apparent to me that God is using the form of man meaning, "the human race." Also, considering that I find it highly unlikely that the first two humans would be encouraging their own children to interbreed (nevermind the genetic implications therein), it's seems to me much more plausible that while Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God, as we'll see in the next section, there were likely not the only ones, merely the only ones worth mentioning.
So, having made it through the first chapter of Genesis, I've realized that I need to be taking much smaller chunks of the Bible if I'm going to be writing this level of commentary on it. I hope everyone will forgive me then, for changing the schedule for this week.
Coming up next, Genesis Chapter 2, wherein we take a closer look at some key figures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

Jon,
ReplyDeleteI like the in depth thought you have put into this first chapter of the Bible. I hope you do the rest the same way.
First of all, let me address some of your issues with creation. The word used for "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 in "re'shit" in Hebrew, which marks a starting point for what comes afterwards. It does not connote any specific length of time, nor does it necessarily mean that the next thing stated follows immediately. What God created in the first verse could have existed for an undefined period of time before God began the work of preparing the uninhabitable land for the habitation of mankind. As echoed in Exodus 20:11, this preparation and creation of Adam and Eve occured in six literal 24 hour days. This view of creation leaves open the possibility of an old earth with a young humanity. I like this view, although there are other Christian views of creation I could tell you more about. If any other Christians that like other views would like to post them, that would be great. When dealing with the Bible, most Christians would consider something like this an "open handed" issue, while something like if Jesus died on the cross for our sins or not would be a "closed handed" issue. I'm sure there will be many more "open handed" issues that will discuss throughout your journey.
Regarding your objection with the sun and the moon being "created" on the fourth day, let me point out a couple of things. The term "made" in verse 16 is the word "'asah" in Hebrew. This Hebrew word could only mean that God "fashioned" or "worked" on them. The word itself doesn't imply that they did not exist in any form before this. It is sticking with the theme of showing you God's power by focusing on the way God ordained the sun and main to order and and define the passing of time according to his purposes.
I didn't think you would start acknowledging the Trinity in the first chapter blog. I would bet most Christians wouldn't have caught that when reading Genesis 1. I believe the best definition for the Trinity would be "one God who eternally exists as three distinct persons- Father, Son, and Spirit- who are each fully and equally God in eternal relation with each other".
There is many verses in scripture that makes it clear that no one or nothing that is like God which opens up the possibility of an all-knowing, uncreated, all-powerful, all-present God. Some of the Old Testament selections for this proof would be Exodus 8:10, 9:14, 15:11, 2nd Samuel 7:22, 1st Chronicles 17:20, Psalms 86:8, and one of my favorite books Isaiah 40:18, 25, 44:7, 46:5, and 9. The main reason we as humans have a deep longing in our heart for community, communication, love, and unity is by design (i.e. God made us in his image) longings for the Trinitarian God of the Bible and a world that is a reflection of the Trinity. As you get into Chapter 2, you will start to see some things that distort these deep longings and turn them into longings for other desires.
I hope I helped a little bit on this first chapter Jon. You know I love these conversations and I look forward to your future readings.
Chad
I tend to think of the usage of the plural as being a reference to the polytheism practiced by the early Hebrews. Families at the time worshiped family gods; Yahweh originated as one of these. Exodus has a couple of nuggets that nod to this idea as well:
ReplyDeleteExodus 20:3 Thou shalt not worship any other gods before me.
Notice that Yahweh isn't saying anything about FALSE gods just acknowledging that there are others and he wishes primacy.
Exodus 3:6 Then he said, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.
This is a specific reference to the idea of the family deity and is an example of Yahweh demanding obedience through the the covenant made with Abraham, Moses' ancestor.
Sometimes a plural is literally a plural :D
Hey.....Poppy! Great to see you diving in. Chad had some great insight and as you and I have discussed, the "timeline" for creation is one of those "open-handed" issues among Christians. As you progress through the bible, it's important to look at things globally as well as locally. One rule to abide by. "Never read just one verse". By that, always read things in context. You'll come across debateable issues, but it's important as well to define if these issues are "essential" or "non-essential" to the overall message of the bible. To drill it down, is the issue essential for salvation or not?
ReplyDeleteAs with Chad, right now is not the time to define your view on the Trinity. What you will find is the bible is a complex system of cross references. Many times in later books, it will give you insight to what meaning there is in previous verses and vice versus.
My only real comment here is I think you missed the orthodox view of the existence of the Trinity. You researched a bit, but the current evangelical orthodoxy is the Trinity has always existed, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were not created, but have existed before creation. Jump ahead and read John 1:1-6 as this is probably the most used support text. Is says that all things were created through Christ. If so, the Christ had to be there at creation. Also, many beleive it as it says in John that Christ is the "Light" that it may well have been Christ that illuminated the earth prior to the sun and moon. Last thing is did you notice the text verse two that "the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". Again, a support text used by those believing the Trinity has always existed.
It's going to be tough to dig all the nuggets at such a rapid pace but I would continue on like you are doing and don't get hung up on every little thing. You can always go back after you have read it through once :) Just FYI, I spent 35 weeks studying Genesis verse by verse. It took me 52 weeks (a year) to go through Revelation!
Keep going!!!!! I dare you :)
Whoops, the reference to plural "create in Our image" goes along with the belief that the Trinity has always existed quite nicely.
ReplyDeleteCongrats on starting on what I am sure will be a great journey for you! I am a biased reader of the Bible in that as a Christian, I hold it to be true. I believe you will find that in reading it you will find many of your ideas about Christianity challenged. Like Gandhi who said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.", you may find yourself identifying with the God you find in the Bible while struggling to mesh HIM with the deity you thought you understood as a child in church. I am looking forward to seeing how your project ends up! I will openly admit I hope your status of "atheist" changes at some point.
ReplyDeletePoppy, I've been really thinking about this journey you're taking and want to make a suggestion. I believe the bible can stand alone, nothing needs to be added and nothing taken away. I believe a conscientious believer allows scripture to interpret scripture. The theological term for the idea is "sola scriptura". I know your desire to not take anothers interpretation of scripture, rather to discover it on your own.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am suggesting is just that. I would suggest you read the bible and nothing more. You are a very intelligent person and pay attention to details so just read it. Don't worry about understanding every letter. Heck, the greatest scholars of history and today don't "have it all figured out".
I know you want to read it for yourself so why depend on the interpretation and bias of others? Why go into it with presuppositions? If you continue to read both the bible and commentaries at this level it will take years for you to complete. I'm worried you will get bogged down on the details. Just use the cross-references in the bible. It will link you to other passages talking about the same thing and from there you can gain much insight. I would just approach it as a novel, while I certainly believe it to be much more than that, read the chapters and gleen what you can at the time. Don't suffer from analysis paralysis.
I'm buying you one more bible. It's called "The Message". It is a paraphrase not a translation (I will explain the difference at work) so it is not one for deep study but a great compliment. The Message reads very easily and I believe with it and the NASB you will have a great toolkit to understand the bible Just as we have discussed about how we likely approach our debating issues with presuppositions and bias and only really research topics at "our" favored websites I really think you will not get an objective opinion of the bible if you rely on others to get insight. I think you want to approach it objectively, so what better way than just you and the text without outside influence.
Sure, still post up want you are learning and favor or object to and we will be certain to agree or disagree but the greatest part about that is you can right back to the text and ask "is that really what it is saying?". I'm actually looking so forward to see what you "see". I know you can bring a fresh perspective to me as I still struggle to separate my fundamental and legalistic teachings from the truth of what the bible says.
@Jon I see what you're saying, but I disagree. While it might be acceptable for a believer to rely on the scripture to interpret itself, that's certainly not the place where I am. It seems like you're advocating not doing any outside research, and merely allowing the text to speak for itself. If I'd done that, I'd have thought God copped to being a polytheist in Genesis 1:26! Besides, saying that only the Bible can interpret the Bible strikes me as circular in its logic, and I think we both know how much value I place in a well-reasoned point!
ReplyDelete