With the model I presented in the previous post (and for now by-passing discussions on what we mean by inspiration and any other in- words) the protology presented by our Scriptures is essentially all that we see and experience came through the spoken word / activity of God (and the NT nails that down as being as a result of personhood – through the Word).
The ancient world has numerous creation stories. Understandably so, for there will always be a reaching out for explanations for ‘how’ something came to be the way it is. The genre we give to those stories is ‘myth’. Myth does not necessarily mean ‘made up’ but neither does it mean ‘take this literally as if a historical event was being described by an eye-witness’. We have not only differences in the two versions between Genesis 1 and 2, but it seems we also have other ancient stories that come through such as that of the slaying of the chaos monster:
Yet God my King is from of old,
working salvation in the earth.
You divided the sea by your might;
you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters.
You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
you gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness (Ps. 74:12-14).
Those verses probably are reflecting an account of how creation came into being that is more ancient than the Genesis versions.The slaying of the monster is common to Babylonian, Norse, Greek and Egyptian; for example the Babylonian version (Enuma Elish) has Marduk, the storm god, killing the primordial chaos goddess Tiamat, who is depicted as a chaotic sea monster or dragon. Marduk creates the heavens and earth by splitting her body in half, separating her water-dominated form to create structure. Something of that seems to be reflected in the Psalm I quoted.
There are both similarities and differences between the seven-day account (Gen. 1:1 – 2:4) and the ‘Adam and Eve’ account (Gen. 2:4-25). I think it is a pointless task to try and hammer out the differences. Differences are present and we do a great dishonour to the ancient writers if we think they simply were not smart enough to spot the obvious differences.There are two accounts, one highly structured that over six ‘days’ – and I do think they were aware that until the sun and moon came into being ‘days’ as in 24 hour periods cannot be measured!! I kinda think if they were to read how certain apologists try and modernise the language that they might just think – after all those millennia they are not so smart after all. The highly structured first account shows how over the first three days the problem of ‘without form’ is dealt with and how the ‘void’ issue is eliminated over the final 3 days. The second account is human-centric and goes beyond the ‘formless and void’ issue to where the relational aspect is central; human companionship being the solution to loneliness.
The differences between those two accounts can be noted.
- There is a difference of order:
Genesis 1 has plants, then animals, then humans last.
Genesis 2 has human either as male or as containing both male and female (‘Adam’ can certainly be pulled in either direction), then plants, then animals, then woman (or human as expressed as distinct persons).
- A different Deity name is used:
Genesis 1 uses “Elohim”.
Genesis 2 uses “Yahweh”.
- There is a difference regarding the method of creation:
Genesis 1 features creation by command (“Let there be”).
Genesis 2 features God forming creation by hand.
I don’t think the differences were missed by the ancients nor is there evidence that they tried to iron out the differences! The creation stories are just that.They are not of the same genre as Jesus’ parables but no ancient hearer was going to set about an investigation as to what the date was when the sower went out to sow and if he really sowed seed among thorns on that day! The genre meant that the historicity of the parable would never be subject to such an investigation. The creation stories is of a different genre to that of the parables (don’t be offended ‘myth’) but they were similar in that history, in the sense of observable activity, was never thought to be what was at stake as if unless they were ‘historically’ (factual and perhaps also scientifically) accurate that the stories did not carry authenticity. And certainly there is no science present in the story – that is to subject the genre to a false investigation not to mention how that would be importing questions from an inappropriate other era.
And on the big question of the ‘when’ of creation I would actually have less problems if eventually we found out that creation was eternal than the idea of a young creation. Mysteries for sure with it all, but was there ever when God who is creative was not creating? We will never solve the puzzle, and thankfully Scripture does not get bogged down in them. It pushes us beyond and higher than such questions.
And maybe a word about the ‘theory’ of evolution. Great pleasure can be taken from the word ‘theory’ as if there is within it a self-acknowledgement that it is ‘just’ a theory. But a ‘theory’ in the scientific world is the current way that an examination of the facts can be explained. Gravity is a ‘theory’ as well a ‘relativity’. Both might be revised / nuanced but I don’t think we should campaign to make sure that such theories are simply guesses and no Bible-believing person should engage with either!
Yes, there can be significant personal reasons why someone might wish to adopt evolution as their explanation of the world; particularly an evolution that eliminates a personal deity. I am far from being a scientist and am neither interested in seeking to refute nor give it major space. The ‘how’ of creation has some options, the ‘why’ is where the Scriptures focus.
The ‘well who created the god who created the god who created the world?’ retort is meaningless. If it carried meaning then the question would be infinitely long. The God who created is the uncreated God. Removing God from the equation (as with a non-theistic evolution) is what presents enormous issues – for that to ‘work’ at some point something began from nothing!
I am slowly getting into this set of posts as I want to explore the thought of Scriptures I would rather not be there! The creation stories are not part of that. Embarrassing for some people, maybe, but only if we try and twist them into something that they are not. Leave them alone and there is a profound richness within them. God providing for humanity, not just an environment, but food (other ancient stories have humanity existing to provide food for the gods); God setting humanity at the pinnacle of creation; of giving dignity to humanity as image-bearers – other sources have stories of temples with images, images that cannot talk nor walk. Creation as a temple and a call to look at humanity as the very image of the divine. Relational harmony.
One final observation I am not convinced that Genesis presents us with a perfect creation – it seems to indicate that creation is good and everything is present for (infinite) growth toward perfection.
Well, Genesis 1 & 2, I am very glad you are in there. The ‘protology’ (first word) helps us on our journey toward a healthy eschatology. God loves humanity and approves!