Cheryl Schatz

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.