Cheryl Schatz

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.