Frank,
I agree with you. The historical, literary and cultural context will all mesh together and should not contradict each other. They are all points that we can anchor our theological “ship” to and when the points align together, we can know that we do not misunderstand. I am amazed at how many Christians believe that the accounts of Adam, Shem and Abraham are merely moral myths and these people may or may not have actually lived. However if they are myths then God deliberately misled us with no historical anchor point. I don’t think so.

Greg,
Glad that you could see that no one here was lumping you into a category of those who attack the Bible.

Paula,
I don’t think your group of friends is so small at all. Lots of us appreciate your wisdom and your gifts.

Good points, Paula.

63 Greg,

I think it’s only fair to ask ourselves where Biblical literalism as stand alone truth ends and where poetic imagery begins.

I didn’t see this as questioning the Genesis account at all since you didn’t mention poetic imagery in Genesis. I think Paula’s comment that Genesis was written from our perspective and not from outside of our view here on earth, is valid. I saw her words as standing beside yours. What I was getting at was that the language of Genesis is sequential so whatever way one looks at the time period, it must be judged by the grammar as it was written as one event after another. My point was also that God was not obligated to answer a challenge from pagan’s or their view. Unless God mentions the false gods in the account (which He does not), there is nothing in the account that says it isn’t meant to be historical. Poetic language, if it were to exist in the account, does not take away from the account being a real historical event.

When I am challenged that my view of a historical account of the creation in Genesis 1 is not the best view, I do have freedom to request proof of the claims of the challengers who say that the account is not literal but is only poetry meant to convey something else. I am not saying that I do not believe that anyone who does not believe that Genesis 1 is historical is not a Christian. However, since this is my blog, I reserve the right to request something concrete from those who challenge me. This can be done in a respectful way since we belong to the same family of God. As far as what you do or don’t believe, I don’t know. I didn’t think that you were challenging me.

As far as the issue of God answering the challenge of pagans who believed that creation was the work of pagan gods, I would be interested in anyone who has a scripture that shows that God is obligated to answer the challenge of pagan gods. I would also be interested to read anyone’s argument that God would answer such a challenge and not even mention the challenge or mention the pagan gods. It seems to me to be a position that is without merit.

Excellent comments about real events spoken from our perspective. It is also wise to realize that poetic language in the saying “the sun stood still” does not mean that we can make it mean anything we want – whatever we “feel”. Neither does it mean that the poetic language means that it was written to refute a pagan myth. It was written about an actual event and spoken from the perspective of the people who saw the event. That kind of language is acceptable.

I find the talk of “poetry” in a historical account to be difficult to put a finger on the meaning by the person who declares it to be poetry. There doesn’t seem to be a concrete meaning or an interpretation by God other than what it says. Without God telling us what His “poetry” means or what His reason for recording the account, how could we ever tie Him into the purpose of defending Himself against pagan gods? For what reason is He obligated to defend Himself? In other places God challenges false gods to do as He does, but He is never obligated to answer their challenges and I would like someone who believes differently to instruct me on why God would have to bow down to the level of paganism to even answer it?

Don,

I want to make sure that you understand that my comments are not meant to be critical of you as a person. We have had many good discussions on this blog and there are times when you actually agree with me even though there are other times that we are on opposite sides of a particular theological fence. What I am trying to do is to encourage us all to stay in the text first and foremost before accepting any outside explanation that adds to or takes away from what is already written. Atheists already are calling Genesis a Christian myth. If we say that God wrote a mythical story to counteract pagan myth, how would that be anything other than a sanctified “Christian” myth? One myth cannot refute another myth. Also an account of creation that has no defined meaning but one which is veiled in a billowy, smoky undefined account that has no biblical interpretation set forth for us to understand what God meant by what He wrote, this “Christian” myth would have absolutely no weight at all to refute a “pagan” myth.

I for one have been given no reason to put my faith in this kind of a Genesis account that doesn’t mean what God wrote. I choose to accept that the sequential grammar that God inspired in the creation account is exactly what He said – it is sequential. If my belief in a literal Genesis is to be refuted it will not be primarily with outside sources. It will be from within the text itself. Then when that has been done, then you may show me a cultural context from outside the text that adds a second witness to what the text says. So first things first. If we are to continue a talk about a non-literal “picture” or non-literal “poetry”, I am going to continue to ask for the proof from the text. Without a textual proof, we will have to move on. I think this is fair and if not, I am sure someone will pipe up and tell me why I am not being fair.

Shortly we will be moving onto the next issue of Genesis and that is the issue of why Adam was alone credited with bringing sin into the world. It is a key issue that has brought universal male headship into the church. I hope to get my next post up within a couple of days, God willing.

Don,

Gen 1 declares, as one example, that the sun is NOT a god, rather it was created.

Genesis 1 says no such thing. I don’t know which bible you are reading from. Genesis 1 also doesn’t say that the earth is NOT god or that plants are NOT god. We can understand that there is only one Creator and all things are created, but Genesis does not say anything directly about the earth, the sky, the planets, the bugs, the cows NOT being god.

What Genesis 1 does speak about is beginnings. Genesis means beginning or origin. Genesis 1 is all about the beginning and the Beginner. It is not about a refutation of some man-made myths. If I am wrong, show me from the text where the words “NOT god” are in the text.

Genesis is a timeless work that was given to all of mankind to explain the origin of all people and all created matter. It was not given to one tribe alone to let them know how THEY alone were created. It is God-breathed. The theme of the Beginner and the beginning is picked up by John in John 1:1

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 He was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

John was also not writing to refute myths. John was writing to tie the Creator of Genesis to the Word who became flesh. To see the inspired words of John as merely answering a pagan myth would water down the word of God. God doesn’t have to answer anyone. God is God. When God gives his revelation, He does as He pleases and reveals His own work. He is not required to answer man-made myths. In fact, the strength of God’s argument demolishes myths without even having to challenge them directly because the truth of God outshines the lie.

John also does not say that the birds are NOT god and the grass, bugs, sun and moon are NOT god. John merely declares the majesty of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, there are many things that can be seen as scientifically simplistic in Torah, but at the time Torah was written they were a step into the Kingdom put in language that the original readers would understand. Neither of these say the Torah is untrue, just that it was written in a specific culture and advanced that culture into the Kingdom as people read it, believed it, and followed it.

The word of God is both simplistic (so that even the simple minded can understand) and complex (things that we are now discovering were written ahead of time in the scriptures). God is able to make his word both understandable and filled with depth. The wonderful way that God did this makes the bible timeless. It also makes the concepts true in any generation. As far as your comment on the “immoral” bible, I am not going to comment here as it would take this post off of my intended topic.

I am fully amazed at God’s word. The more I study it, the more it becomes like an onion that can be peeled layer after layer. Each layer is more complex and it has amazing depth and yet it has the ability to be understood by the common simplistic man (or woman!) I am also amazed at how often I find a verse that I have read many times and when the verse leaps out at me I wonder how I could have missed such a treasure. I could never tire of such an amazing revelation of God.

Don,

An example is that the sun and moon are created by Elohim and not “gods” as was thought by some at the time.

What you are saying makes no sense to me at all. If God wrote Genesis 1 as an apologetic response to false theories of creation then He made a big mistake by using the term “Elohim” which is a plurality. Rather than making myths as the focus and Genesis merely a refutation, God has made Genesis his revelation of creation. He used the plural form in a singular way to show the plurality in the Godhead right from the beginning. After that He focused on One saying that God is One. Only one God – yet Genesis 1 reveals God in plurality. That is the opposite of what one might think He should do if he were refuting a plurality of Gods. In that case He should focus on his Oneness first before revealing His plurality. Also there is nothing in Genesis 1 that is written as a refutation or a contradiction. There is no “but”, there is no reference to myths, there is no contrasting language. There is nothing but God’s revelation that we can take as truth. If we focus in on the myths first and line up God’s revelation to these myths we will narrow our interpretation to God’s creation account as seen through man’s eyes. We would then be testing God’s word by the words and myths of men. This is the opposite of how scripture should be tested.

There is also no language that makes Genesis 1 as written for only Jewish people and Genesis 2 written for all people. If these writers that you referenced make this their claim, then in my opinion I would see it as a way to disregard Genesis 1. Many don’t like Genesis 1 because it is hard to match up with millions of years of evolution. Others make the creative works on the different days to be concurrent instead of sequential. I do not believe that we have the option of writing off some scripture because it does not fit with our preconceived notions. If we say Genesis 1 is just a painting and because of that we can ignore the distinct timing of one event sequentially after another, we will then be able to do this to other things that we don’t like and many have gone down this road. I cannot and will not be one of those who walks away from an uncomfortable scripture. I want to know what God said so that I can hold strong and firm to His word. I refuse to be an egalitarian who ignores scripture or treats it as if God wrote His word so that there are thousands of subjective interpretations and no way to find out what God really meant. This is why I pay attention to detail. This is why I emphasize the inspired words and the inspired grammar. I do not want to be deceived. I want only God’s truth. And this is why I will always push people who disagree with me to prove their point from the text itself. Unless there is evidence within the text to prove a view different than what I can clearly see already in the text, then I cannot be moved by unsubstantiated claims from outside the text that is designed to conform God’s word to man’s word.

Don,

As I stated, one sees the polemic in Gen 1 in contrast to the other polytheistic origins stories.

I don’t know about the other polytheistic origin stories. What I was asking for is where do you see in the text that it is a response to other polytheistic origins? I don’t see anything that would make Genesis 1 a response to a myth. I don’t have a problem with you showing where God said this….and the myth said this….but to say that it was written as an argument against a myth and therefore it isn’t to be taken as a real historic sequential event(s), has problems for me. What is the grammar that you use to prove that it is a response to an unrecorded myth? Where is the contrast in the text that points you to the conclusion that it isn’t an actual account but a “picture” that is only meant to refute a myth but have no historical function. I hope that you can understand that I am a fact person and without evidence there is nothing to convince me.

2….This is what egals claim for some verses, asking to see the cultural contrast; this is what I do for Gen origins stories also. It is not reading into the text to notice this contrast, in either case.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. i.e. that there is no contrast in the text itself, you just see a contrast in the myths with the Genesis account? If this is what you mean, then we would have to take the account as it is since the actual historical account of creation had to come first and the myths are takeoffs of the original.

3. On you being wrong, I am NOT saying that the way you understand the origins texts is impossible, just that it is not required by the text, that other interpretations are also possible.

For example? It would be helpful if you could pick a concrete example. i.e. animals created after Adam, the garden created after Adam, the plants sprouting after Adam. Take your pick.

4. I try my best to read every portion of Scripture as it would be understood by the original readers, not just the “gender” verses. For the Torah of Moses, I believe these original readers would be the early Israelites.

The origin of creation is not given differently for an Israelite. A fact is a fact. Unless you are trying to say that God relates the creating of the sun different to one race than He does to another? The story of creation would have been passed down from one generation to another. In fact according to the genealogy of Genesis, Noah’s son Shem was still alive when Abraham died and one of Adam’s grandsons was alive when Noah was born. God’s truth survived and flourished and the Genesis account is not muddied by myth but is an accurate account of great historical significance. If this is not true, then show why we should not trust that Genesis was given as a historical record. What hidden code is in the text that makes it not historical?

5. I also accept God’s word on the matter of creation. I believe what we see had a beginning and did not always exist and that it is at least 6700 years old. This eliminates a lot of alternatives.

That is pretty general. Do you accept any other fact from Genesis 1?

6. One method of trying to interpret Scripture is to “interpret literally, except where it cannot”. The problem is that “where it cannot” differs among believers.

“Where it cannot” needs to be biblical. Where is it a biblical “cannot” that animals were created after Adam? How is there anything at all in Genesis 1 that is a biblical “cannot”? I do not see even one thing and no one has yet instructed me otherwise.

My faith says we see thru a glass darkly and faithful believers can believe differently about origins and end times.

I agree. Yet at the same time if one reads into the text or takes away from the text it can have serious consequences on what one believes about other important matters. For example hierarchists believe that God originally gave the male a mandate to rule over the female. This isn’t in the text, but this addition has caused a great deal of grief for male/female relations especially in the home and church. I believe that it is important to push through these differences so that people can both understand and be understood. I do not believe that one should say that one is not a brother in Christ because of differing views in this area. I will also strenuously argue my position because each piece is a puzzle piece that fits together. If we remove one important piece, there are gaping holes. I believe that God gave us each piece so that we could work it all through as a second and third witness to his creative plan. It is essential to my belief that God said what He meant and meant what He said.

Don,

I see part of the reason for differences is that the origins narratives do not say everything we might wish them to say, so people fill in the gaps in different ways.

God has given us everything we need to know. It isn’t an issue of “filling in the gaps” but merely accepting what God has already told us and matching that with his confirmation in other scriptures.

And also that someone reads them in A way but thinks it is the ONLY way, but it turns out that this is in turn build on their unstated assumptions.

Perhaps some do this. I know that patriarchists do this for sure as they give Adam an authority that is withheld from Eve. However I have not seen an assumption that I am making. I think this is what we are talking about and generalities doesn’t work for me.

On the Gen 1-2:3 pericope, I see this as primarily an a(poly)theistic polemic which was SO SUCCESSFUL that it is hard for us today to see it as such, but this can be seen when contrasted with the historical pagan origins stories.

In Isaiah, God clearly shows that it is His word first. Pagan gods and pagan origins do not dictate God’s word. Also if Genesis were a polemic, then the inspired grammar would show that it was a contrast to something else or an statement argument against a false opinion. There is no evidence at all that Genesis 1-3 was written as an argument against another opinion. If so, show it to me.

It attacked the existing pagan worldviews in repeated ways, claiming all their “gods” were bogus, that Elohim did it all.

This is the position of Isaiah not Genesis.

Isaiah 41:23 Declare the things that are going to come afterward, That we may know that you are gods; Indeed, do good or evil, that we may anxiously look about us and fear together.
Isaiah 41:24 Behold, you are of no account, And your work amounts to nothing; He who chooses you is an abomination.

Genesis 1-3 does not directly attack any false “god”. This is reading into the text. If you think I am wrong, then show me from the account where God mentioned any other god or attacked a false god? He absolutely did this in Isaiah and in other books of the Bible, but Genesis is all about beginnings. It is all about God Himself and His work. It says not one word about false gods, myths or false creation stories. I mean, I could be wrong, but then you would have to show me the false creation story that is refuted by God in Genesis 1-3. There is no wording that is attached to a refutation.

That is, the very idea of polytheism was wrong, which was an astounding claim at the time, as it seemed so “obvious”.

The only reference to polytheism is the serpent’s deception in Genesis 3 that Adam and Eve could be like God.

What is an amazing thing is that God reveals Himself as Elohiym this is the plural form. God right from the beginning reveals Himself as more than one in unity as God.

I also see the Gen 1 pericope as saying a lot LESS than others think it says. In this I go along with the ideas in “Paradigms on Pilgrimage”. It is giving a word picture that is being sketched in over the creation days like the script of a movie, but the word picture is for an early Israelite, not a modern like us with questions that would never have been asked by an Israelite.

What evidence do you have from the text that Genesis 1 was written for an early Israelite and not meant for us, while Genesis 2 was written for all men? How is Genesis 1 a “word picture” while Genesis 2 is not a “word picture”? Does a “word picture” mean something different than the words that were painted? Does it say one thing and mean another? Since you are saying that I am wrong, it might be good to show me where I am wrong. What defines Genesis 1 as a poem or as a “word picture” and not to be taken as historical truth? What words then define Genesis 2 as historical truth? Why would God write the first chapter that speaks about Himself and make it not believable just as He has written it, but write chapter 2 on the origin of man and make that believable? What “clues” did God import into the text that make Genesis 1 a mere picture that can be interpreted in a purely subjective way and Genesis 2 is concrete and real and non-subjective? Was God really trying to make us understand what He meant or was he playing a game with our heads? Or is it possible that men are fallible and whenever there is a concept that they don’t like it becomes “symbolic”?

The Bible uses phenomenological language to describe things, that is, it describes things by appearances and not necessarily (scientific) realities.

Sometimes the bible expresses a concept on the way that we see it, not the way that God sees it. But there are other things that are said exactly the way they are so that the we can see when God has described things the way they actually are. But Genesis 1-3 has no other interpretation in the scriptures. There is nothing to interpret Genesis to tell us what it means if God didn’t say what He meant and meant what He said. If we take our own concept of the beginning of creation and import that into the text, then there are a million ways to interpret the beginning of creation. What is truth? There is no one truth that way. It is all subjective. Perhaps then Wayne Grudem is right when he interprets the creation of Adam as God’s plan to give men the preeminence. What right have we to say to Wayne Grudem that he is wrong? We cannot if it is all a word picture and can be interpreted with whatever color we perceive. None of it is real. Whatever we think we see is reality.

I choose to accept the literal meaning except when God Himself shows by His own word that the meaning cannot be taken literally. I see no reason at all to remove Genesis 1 from reality. It fits perfectly with chapter 2.

We know this caused some problems between church and some early scientists…

When I was a child scientists said that the age of the earth was millions of years old. Now they say it is billions of years old. The bible says that the wisdom of man is foolishness compared to His wisdom.

I still accept you as a brother in Christ. You are a dear brother in Christ.

I also accept God’s word on the matter of creation and request that if you see the creation account as a mere story that is not literal just show me exactly from the text what words in the text make you believe this way. Generalities cannot be examined so I would need the words. If there is something that I have missed in the account that makes the Genesis 1-3 account something different than a historical record I want to see it.

49 Don,

The point of my mentioning this is when Cheryl assumes a young earth in some of her arguments, she goes where people who believe in an old earth do not go in their interpretation/understanding.

I try hard not to assume anything. I use the inspired words and the inspired grammar to understand the account in its full context. I try not to disregard any part of the account because I believe that it was inspired as it was written for a reason. The fact that God created animals after the creation of Adam does not pose any problems for me. Nor does the fact that God created the seeds first and that these seeds didn’t sprout until after man was created, does not cause me a problem at all since I do not have any assumed thoughts that animals were created thousands or millions of years before man was. If I had those assumptions, I would have to reject the inspired words of scripture and make them a parable or some kind of non-literal rambling of myths written by people who did not know the truth of creation. If I myself believed that there were millions of years between the animals and Adam and even between Adam and Eve, I would likely chuck most of the foundation of Genesis as unnecessary, meaningless (or at least meaningful only in the eye of the beholder to whatever each individual wanted the myths to mean). But since I come to the text without having to force the text to conform to either young earth or old earth, I can let the text speak for itself. If the text “speaks” old earth (i.e. millions of years of death and decay before Adam was created) then I am willing to hear the other side. Each side needs to be tested by the Word of God to see if there is any conflict with other scriptures or within the passage itself. The correct view should have no conflicts. The view that is incorrect will have problems with the inspired words, inspired grammar, the complete context and other witnesses from the scripture. I cannot in all good conscience see myself standing before God and telling him that I didn’t believe Genesis as it was written.

Don, I would like to understand you and your view. However I cannot pinpoint your assumptions until you answer my question about how you judge between what is historical and what is “poetry”? I would really like you to consider answering these questions that I posed earlier:

So what is it about the three accounts that makes you take one or two accounts or parts of each account as a piece of poetry and other parts or accounts as the facts of creation? What other witness do you use that interprets the “poetry” of Genesis? And do you see poetry as the actual facts of creation put into a certain flow of words while still presenting the actual truth, or is poetry actually a myth or a story that isn’t true but which presents some spiritual value outside of factual truth? I am wondering if the word “poetry” is meaning something different to each of us.

41 Frank,

Perhaps some might disagree with my view about the length of the six creation days, which is fine. But I think we can at least agree that Day Six was long enough for all these events to take place sequentially and to be completed within that time period.

Amen! So many take the passage as a mixture of history & non-literal that it appears impossible to assert was is real and what is not, so it is refreshing to see the sequential aspect with the set time period held up as God’s inspired record. If God inspired the record of the creation to be written in the grammatically sequential language, then I think we should accept his account. After all He was there and so His account can be trusted as it was written.

pinklight,

If this is true and the “requirement” was based on the privledged giving up and serving instead well it does parallel in some sense to what Christ did because he put on flesh and by doing so came to our level.

Amen!

And I wanted to make this point because comps or and patris do see from what I can tell that married men can be more Christlike than married women because of their supposed authority.

And so they are wrong. Jesus came to serve. He said it. He did it. And he gave us all the example or real service. Those who think they have an authority over their “body” have failed to see Jesus.

The actions are not limited to men. It seems that the only one “required” to serve is the “head”. The “body” has the ability to serve but not the requirement. That is the way I see it. Thoughts?

pinklight,

Honestly, I think it takes the grace of God. It takes God’s grace to realize that men have not been given direction to rule over, lord over or take over the power of a woman to make decisions. Those who do these things saying they are doing them for the woman’s good are not giving their own “body” the full right to grow and mature and use her gifts as God gave them. It will take God’s grace to move from living as a “lone son of privilege” to an equal heir with her.

It should be noted that the scriptures gives the “work” of the head as a place of service to the body to care for, protect and nourish the body. A woman can certainly care for, protect and nourish as well. Such action is not against the law of God nor is it against the law of love. So once again the “actions” of Jesus that can be followed by men can also be followed by women.

Michael,
Keep working hard at your study in the scriptures!

Blessings,
Cheryl

gengwall,

Below is the relevant verses from Genesis 2 with my comments in brackets.

Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

(What is the point of this verse if this was the condition of the earth millions of years ago but not also the condition of the earth just before the creation of man? How would the barrenness of the world then have anything to do with man if this “barren stage” was finished millions of years ago?)

Gen 2:6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

(This verse is a contrast to the barren and waterless state of the previous verse. But there would be no contrast if the earth was not barren at the time of Adam’s creation and instead the earth had been watered for millions of years)

Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

(“Formed” is once again a suffixed sequential verb. What would be the point of a sequential account following millions of years that weren’t really barren nor dry?)

Gen 2:8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

(This is also sequential. If we can import millions of years before Adam, then can we also important millions of years after Adam and before the garden of Eden was planted? Can we see Adam wandering around the earth for millions of years after his creation without a garden home and without a mate or is it reasonable to see one sequential event happening after another sequential event?)

If anyone can show how the sequential events of chapter 2 can make sense within the context of millions of years before or after the creation of Adam, I invite you to lay out your case from these verses.

Genesis is a fascinating book and a fascinating set of events that we can trace through one event after another with the particular Hebrew grammar. I really do encourage Christians to have another look at Genesis and follow the events and the grammar through. I think you will find it eye-opening and it will cause you to see the creative Majesty of God in a new way.

gengwall,

Well, Cheryl, I think you are employing some presumptive reasoning. You presume 24 hour days so you presume that the period between the mist falling over the earth to water the seeds and the forming of the man occurred within hours of each other (i.e. not long enough for the plants to sprout or the man to get too hungry).

Genesis 2:5 gives the reason why there was no shrubs or plants. It is two fold – no moisture sent and no man to cultivate the ground.

Gen 2:5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

If this was changed millions of years before Adam, then there would be no point in the account to mention why there was no plants that had yet grown if they had been around for millions of years. Everything in chapter two revolves around the man and the bare earth also is focused on the wait for the cultivator.

The next issue is Genesis chapter 1. In each one of the verses where it says “God said” “God saw” “God placed” etc, the verbs are all prefixed sequential. Genesis 1:27-31 is all sequential so that the animals weren’t given the green plants for food until after man was created. I have gone through each of the verbs and they are all sequential. That doesn’t cause a problem for me since I believe the creation days were ordinary days, but it does pose a problem in my mind for old earthers to have animals alive for millions of years without God’s permission to eat the plants (which apparently didn’t sprout until man as ruler of the earth was created). I don’t see this as presumption, just taking the account as it was written with the time line given in the sequential account.

Does this make any sense?

pinklight,
Let me ask you one question first. Is a married male more like Christ than an unmarried male because he is now “head” of a “body”?

Don,
I still honestly do not understand you.

As far as the NT gospels, I can put the gospel accounts together and make a solid story even though I understand that putting it together discounts some of the personal style. Matthew is one who has his own style and I think he walked with the beat of a different drummer – very different than the other gospels. I have really come to love Matthew because I feel so much like him sometimes – all over the map, yet very deep and attentive to details.

However as far as the Genesis accounts, they are all written by God Himself as the ultimate author with no outward human author appending his name to each account. There is a sense of unity between the different “views” of creation and God alone was there to see creation so any truth told had to be God’s account since no human experienced it on his own (other than Adam seeing parts of creation and I don’t know anyone who teaches that Adam wrote any part of Genesis). So what is it about the three accounts that makes you take one or two accounts or parts of each account as a piece of poetry and other parts or accounts as the facts of creation? What other witness do you use that interprets the “poetry” of Genesis? And do you see poetry as the actual facts of creation put into a certain flow of words while still presenting the actual truth, or is poetry actually a myth or a story that isn’t true but which presents some spiritual value outside of factual truth? I am wondering if the word “poetry” is meaning something different to each of us.

I do view old earthers as brothers in Christ, but I do see problems with the Genesis account that must be glossed over in order for one to be an old earther.

I also see a problem in Genesis 2 if the passage is not allowed to be fit together with Genesis 1. Genesis 2 is primarily sequential and there is no food provided for animals until after Adam is created. So either Genesis 2 is wrong or the old earth theory is wrong or animals could live millions of years without food. I accept the Genesis 2 account as truth without any disbelief at all. I have never yet run into problems with that view. I assume that you see Genesis 2 as a myth or a parable or a mystery that says one thing but means another. If you could help to clear up your understanding that would be great. If you don’t want to engage, don’t worry. You aren’t going to hurt my faith because I trust in the two or three witnesses test and have yet to find any problems.

pinklight,
I would answer that one this way – Jesus was the “head” of the church, the bridegroom of the church. Is any male allowed to follow Jesus and be the “head” of the church, the bridegroom of the church? I say no. Is there anything else that a male is allowed to do what Jesus did, but females are not allowed to do? I come up blank. I don’t see anything.

Don,

By claiming something that happened in Gen 2 happened on day 6 of Gen 1 implies a merging of the stories that goes too far in my reading. That is, I try assess each story on its own for the point(s) it is making. I do use parts of other stories to make points in a story, such as the God-given name of the man and woman being Adam, yet I do not try to combine them into a single chronological narrative.

I have heard you say this before and it confuses me. Perhaps it is time to try to understand. Are you saying that Adam was created twice? Are you saying that one account is real and another account is just a story that was not meant to be taken literally? How many accounts are literal and how do you decide what is literal and what is figurative? Do you see any harm in taking God at his word and believing that God is the author of all the accounts and that they can be put together without contradiction? Do you see God as the author of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Do you allow the accounts to be put together to have one unified account?

Sorry for all the questions. If you choose not to answer them all, that is okay. I thought it is time to set aside my ignorance and try to actually understand what you are saying.

Last question, am I accept by you even though I believe the Bible to be literally true in the creation accounts and believe that God said what He meant and meant what He said?

gengwall,

But I think we dishonor God when we try to cover up the significant design differences he so clearly built into males and females.

**Blush!!** Oh dear….I am covering up my significant design differences! (Sorry. I couldn’t help slipping that one in.)

Yes, I do agree that there are physical differences that we should not disregard and we should allow for other differences so that we don’t think each other must think/act the way we do and we should not try to become the other sex. But inside….well, we are made spiritually after our spiritual Father and we are all sons of God.

Thanks for saying that there is nothing that Jesus did that males can follow but I cannot. You are a blessing!

Paula and gengwall,
Would you both agree that being Christlike has nothing to do with imitating testosterone but rather the spiritual qualities that Jesus had that all of us can imitate?

For those who want to knock Jesus, they can make Jesus’ soft dealings with people as “sissified” and Jesus anger at those who wanted to destroy the purpose of God’s house as “macho male”. It seems to me that Jesus is all about internal attitudes that result in external actions and I don’t see anything that women aren’t allowed to imitate. Maybe I am wrong. Is there anything that Jesus did that women are not allowed to follow and imitate?

Don,

create is something only God does

This isn’t true. I can create a song and I can form a pot.

Form is a subset of creation and while it is not synonymous with plants since plants were created but not formed, it is synonymous with humans since humans were created by being formed. Genesis 1 says that Eve was created and Genesis 2 says that Eve was formed. This is not a contradiction but the same thing. She was not created twice nor was she formed twice.

The creation account in Genesis 1 & 2 do not contradict each other. There is no error in the account. There is no second witness in any of the other scriptures that Eve was created twice – once inside the body of Adam and a second time in a separation from Adam. There is also no second witness that Adam was created as a non-gendered human and then re-created or gendered later. There was one creation for male and one creation for female. Jesus didn’t say that God created the non-gendered human or the male/female multi-sex being in the beginning. The creation “from the beginning” in Jesus’ testimony was that mankind was male AND female.

Matthew 19:4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,

Jesus said that this was “two” flesh people not one and this is why marriage is to bring them into oneness.

Matthew 19:6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

The joining of two people comes after marriage. Jesus does not say that there were two people in the beginning jointed in one flesh, then separated and then brought back together. I know that this is what you believe, but Jesus does not substantiate this. Instead Jesus said that in the beginning there were two and the two were then joined together in marriage to become one.

How do you take the account in Genesis 2 that says that there was no plants or bushes yet on the land? Do you see this as a contradiction of Genesis 1?

For more thoughtful expressions of the purpose of women and their worth see the youtube clip at This is produced by fishersofwomen.com and under the tab spiritual clarity Dawn G. Choate writes:

Our preconceptions about words such as authority, submission, rule, governance, and headship often cloud our ability to really penetrate the Scriptures and hear from God Himself on his views of women. Instead, we repeat what we have been told by others and depend on worldly judgements, missing entirely the heart of the One who created us and knows our purpose and destiny intimately.

I heartily agree. We are first of all created for God and for his glory and our purpose for the man is much beyond just our physical beauty and bodily function. We can praise God for all that he created us to be.

Charis,
Here is a good verse:

Malachi 2:14 “Yet you say, ‘For what reason?’ Because the LORD has been a witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant.

The purpose of the wife is to be a companion and in a relationship by covenant.

What is interesting is that in the next verse God identified that those who have the Spirit did not deal treacherously with their wife as companion and covenant partner.

Malachi 2:15 “But not one has done so who has a remnant of the Spirit. And what did that one do while he was seeking a godly offspring? Take heed then to your spirit, and let no one deal treacherously against the wife of your youth.

Is it possible that the man who treats his wife as a sex object and not as a companion and covenant partner does not have the Holy Spirit? Perhaps that is a thought to follow through on and a sobering warning to any man who mistreats and objectifies his wife.

Charis,
I should add that it is wrong to assume that I know nothing about being treated as if woman was only for sex. I just prefer not to talk about any past experiences openly since my relationship with my husband is very satisfying and God-honoring. I am a logical kind of person and I try hard not to let past “issues” color the way I read the scriptures. I would rather look at all the factual things that are already there like word meanings, the grammar, the word construction and the entire context. There is too much that already is written into the scripture for me to speculate about what God might mean that He didn’t put clearly into the text. Again, I am willing to admit that I am wrong if it can be shown that there is a second witness that “use” can reference the emotional or spiritual side of a woman and not the physical body. I would encourage you to check the scriptures and bring to light any reference to “use” that I may have missed. My experiences or lack of experiences does not stop me from seeing the truth of God’s word that you could bring.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Charis,
The natural “use” in this context is about the body. It doesn’t say that the “natural use” of a woman’s mind or her emotions or her friendship. The context is about abusing of the body and shame and lust. All I need is a second witness to show that “natural use” can refer to something other than the physical.

I am completely with you on the issue of marriage and relationships and that a husband should not be expecting a sexual relationship with his wife while refusing to bond with her emotionally. What I am saying is that the passage is not talking about emotional relationships between husband and wife. I am not saying that God didn’t create women for intimate emotional relationships with men. He absolutely did create the woman for this purpose. In this way I am not debating you at all because I agree with you. I am just saying that you are using Romans 1 out of context. Romans 1:24 says “body”. It is only talking about the sin done in the body. It is a sinful acting out what started in the mind. God is not saying that He created women only for a physical “use”. But the term “use” is never used for an emotional relationship. If I am wrong, then it would only take a second witness from scripture to prove me wrong. If you can find a second witness I would be willing to revisit this issue.

I think that it is very noble to encourage men to honor and cherish their wives and not to look at them as if they were objects to “use” instead of an outworking of a loving, emotional relationship. But I would caution you at reading into a passage something that is not there. If you remove the sinful lusting of one man for another man’s body, you are removing what God has said is sin and it removes one of the witnesses from the NT against homosexuality. Does this make sense?

Don,
“Created” and “formed” mean the same thing. Formed is just a subset of the term “created”. God created mankind by forming them. The man was formed from the dust of the earth and the woman was formed from the side part of the man. Before Adam was created, animals were created by being spoken into existence and after Adam they were “formed” from the dust of the earth. Not all that is created is “formed”, but all that is “formed” is created. The plants were created but not formed. Mankind since Adam and Eve are now “formed” in their mother’s womb, but the bible still says that this is called “created”.

Gen 6:7 The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

It is not correct to deny that woman was “created” after the man. In mankind’s case, creation and forming are synonymous as Genesis 6:7 shows since the type of creation of every person is a forming in their mother’s womb. If God can say that all men who are formed in the womb are called “created” then it cannot be an error to say that Eve was “created” after Adam.

Charis,
In word definitions, several options are listed and the exact meaning is dependent on the context. The context “unseeming” in this context is not about an outward disfigurement. It is about disgrace and shame. While men can lust for male power and position, the text specifically says that these men will lust for each other. It is lust for a person not envy for their position. The context is a moral failure not a failure to emotionally connect.

“Natural use” is not about relationships. Where is the word “use” ever used about relationships? We must have a second witness to make a sound case. Just because God is talking about the natural physical “use” in these verses does not mean that God did not create the woman for both physical, mental and spiritual purposes. I personally do not know of anyone who says that God created the woman only for a sexual purpose for the man. Even John MacArthur who is a strong complementarian admits that the woman was created for interpersonal relationship with the man. I think that it would be better for us to do away with the old English term “meet”. This word no longer has meaning in our time. A better term would be a “completer”. A woman completes the man in that she is able to give him what he lacks. The original creation of a solitary man without the woman was “not good” according to God.

The purpose of Romans 1 is that men who reject God are then able to reject the physical relationships created by their Creator. Those who reject the Creator will go on to reject morality and God will turn them over to “act out” their immorality so that they receive in their body the due penalty for their sin. The purpose of the passage is not to describe the wonderful complementary addition of women to a man. It was written to show the perversions on one thing only – the design of the human body. When perverted men reject God’s design for the human body, anything goes and when anything goes, shame and disgrace will follow.

I should have a look at other passages that actually do say what you are saying – that God made women to be a spiritual, emotional and physical partner for the man and when men discredit and disregard any part of her worth, men reject God’s good creation. Rejecting God’s full creation of the worth of the woman will lead men into myths and lies and marriage and the church will be greatly hurt.