Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
1a. The separation of the continents, the scientifically accurate separation of sky and oceans, evolution, and the origin of life starting in the seas and culminating with humanity (after the other species) are not things humans could be expected to figure out on their own, yet Genesis 1 records them.
1b. That does imply divine inspiration, though it does not prove it. Other ancient creation stories don’t have records anywhere near so scientifically precise.
- I agree that evolution’s having existed doesn’t deny or confirm God’s existence or guidance (aside from the fact that Genesis 1 refers to it).
- No, it does not. In fact, it’s just a more detailed description of the creation of humanity- Genesis 1 is not detailed about this critically important event. There are no clear contradictions between the two accounts.
- There is a lot of factual history there, in language appropriate to the time of writing. I pointed that out in my post about the Genesis/Science parallels.
- There is also symbolic or allegorical imagery in visions, because this beautiful way of speaking can convey multiple truths simultaneously, and as truth is central to God’s being (Jesus said, “I am the truth.”), this is a natural overflow of God’s nature.
beeliner:
1a. Nonsense. Both accounts are based on centuries-older pagan creation myths, and there are many other such myths, still extant, that are even older. You underestimate the human imagination.
This could draw us into a very lengthy debate over chronology. I’m not convinced that the pagan myths Genesis is supposedly based on predate Genesis. In fact, I think Genesis often actually was the original influence for them. There is a massive chronology problem engulfing the Mediterranean region that went by Egypt’s calendar, during the Third Intermediate Period. It’s a kind of “dark age” of around 500 years that consumed the entire area, in which nothing supposedly happened. There are almost no records documenting that era, and as various dating methods have become more precise, that 500 year gap has become even emptier, because artifacts that were earlier thought to belong to it were found to not be a part of it. This 500 year gap pushes the chronology of many Biblical events and documents far later than pagan ones and causes people to think that the pagan documents were the origins. In fact, archaeologists try to say that the Egyptian Third Intermediate Period and corresponding Mediterranean collapse was all a cascade into poverty so dire that it left no culture or documentation behind. But the documentation and culture of Egypt at the end of the Third Intermediate Period takes off at exactly the same point it left off, the same customs and culture in use that existed in that earlier, wealthier time, with no reference in the documents of that era to a massive lurch into poverty preceeding it.
It’s quite a coincidence that there is virtually no archaeological evidence for the 500 year Third Intermediate Period, that culture and documentation take off right where it left off without any interruption or change at the end of the Third Intermediate Period (with no reference to any events from the last 500 years), and that all countries around the Mediterranean that went by the Egyptian calendar went through a similar dark age for hundreds of years without explanation or breakage of culture and custom between the beginning of the dark age and the time when it ended.
If the 500 year gap is closed as a time error in the Egyptian calendar, many, many more Biblical Old Testament events line up precisely with Egyptian records, Canaanite records and surrounding historical evidence. Then one can see that the Old Testament predated these pagan myths and influenced them, rather than it being the other way around.
beeliner:
1b. I don’t see the Divine inspiration explicit in the account, which is very general.
I already pointed out the numerous scientific facts it corroborates. They are enough to imply divine inspiration. It is improbable that a set of ancient people could dream up Pangea and the break-up of the continents, the accurate development of the atmosphere, the development of species by environment, and the order of life’s creation, through imagination alone.
beeliner:
- Surely you’re kidding. Have you even read it? It disagrees on nearly everything.
Of course I’ve read it, and no it doesn’t. It says that there weren’t any man-made fields before man was created, that man was created and then Eve, that Adam was made in a barren place and then moved to Eden, but none of these things contradict Genesis 1. Genesis 1 says that there was vegetation already, though no man-made fields, it doesn’t say whether Adam and Eve were created at the same second or a few hours apart or a few days or years- it just says, “he created them.” And Genesis 1 doesn’t mention whether Adam was made in a barren place initially or in a lush jungle, so this is not a contradiction of the second account. Each account focuses on different things, elaborating on different things, but they don’t contradict each other.
beeliner:
Also, since the accounts are from completely different sources, why should they be expected to agree?
Because they both came from the mouth of God
. But at that point I know we part company.
beeliner:
- Only to the extent upon which we have already agreed, that the order of creation in Gensis 1 is roughly similar to the findings of science, taking the ‘days’ as billions of years. That leaves the fanciful events of Genesis 2 as pure allegory.
Remember that I already pointed out Genesis 1 was probably seen in a vision. Adam didn’t live through the days prior to the one he was created on (number 6), so it’s perfectly logical for Christians to see the 7 days as non-literal. Symbolism happens all the time in visions, and the number 7 in particular is used frequently in symbolic ways (remember Revelation is full of this).
But no, one doesn’t at all have to take Genesis 2 as allegory. Science has little to say about the existence of Eden, yay or nay, and Genesis’ description of man made from dust is not inconsistent with science. “Dust” is defined as organic material. Not as “non-living organic material.” We are all made of dust, and to dust we shall return. If Adam evolved, this would not contradict Genesis 2.
Genesis 2 does not have to be consigned to allegory at all. In fact, I’d be more likely to assert its historicity than I would be Genesis 1, in spite of all Genesis 1’s parallels to science, because Adam was alive in Genesis 2, so there isn’t really that much reason to suppose that this part of the story came to humans through a vision. While it could be a vision, it’s probably a historical account written from human experience rather than from God’s vantage point. Adam and Eve passed this story down to their children, who passed it on to their children, probably, and eventually it was given written form, and Genesis 2 was probably based on those older stories or traditions.
Some kind of fall from grace, from an ancient very good condition to a bad one, is present in ancient creation myths all over the world. Since, according to Christian theology, all humans came from Adam and Eve, this correspondence makes historical sense as an ancient memory that has been modified and rewritten a lot over time.
But we do believe that God can preserve the true account from human error, if he wants to, and transmit it to us in accurate form
.
