Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Bamboo Bird]

How do you believe in Adam and Eve when there is scientific proof dinosaurs and humans weren't around at the same time? If Adam and Eve were the first people made and all animals with them, how is that scientifically possible? If you don't believe in that part of the Bible, how do you know the rest is true?

[jimwalton]

There is a new take on Adam and Eve based on continued studies in ancient Near Eastern thought that is making headway in Christian circles. It's the theory that Genesis 1-2 are not about material origins, but about God assigning role and function to creation. It turns out that it accords well both with the text and with the cultural and religious concerns of the ancient Near East. It argues that Gn. 1-2 are not about God making things, but about giving them their purpose. (That doesn't mean God didn't make them, but only that that's not what Gn. 1-2 are about.)

As such, then, the story of Adam and Eve is not about the creation of Adam and Eve, but about God giving them their role and function (fill the earth, subdue it, rule over it, work the garden and care for it, etc.). In that sense (and this does make sense) Adam and Eve were not NECESSARILY the first hominids on the planet. Perhaps (and the text allows for this) they were the first hominids to develop to the point where they were, well, *human*, and therefore capable of a spiritual relationship with God, intellectually capable of functioning as human, and morally capable. God separated these two hominids out from the rest (Gn. 2.15: "God took them..."—took them from where?—probably out from the rest), put them in a special environment, and formed a relationship with them. Etc. etc.

Looking at it from that vantage point, Adam and Eve are the archetypes of humanity (not allegories or metaphors, mind you)—representatives of the human race, but not necessarily the first hominids. If this theory has credence, which it does, then our scientific understandings of origins and our biblical understandings of Adam and Eve are concordant, not conflicting.

Just food for thought.

[Rogue]

Genesis 1 is clearly about creation. Anyone who claims otherwise isn't reading the same text. Genesis 2 has many literal elements that would be completely irrelevant to "assigning purpose". Indeed, nearly the entire first half. Further, the "purpose" assigned is horrific. While being "fruitful" was necessary for a long time, surely an all-knowing purpose-assigner could have foreseen the consequences, and an all-powerful author could have expressed a more finely tuned purpose. Adam is said to have dominion over all animals, and we've seen how well that's worked out. And woman is placed as completely subservient, and even specifically created as a "servant" for Adam.

And of course, if God isn't the creator, it undermines everything about religion: "Oh Politician, purposer of everything, please assign me the wisdom...."

[jimwalton]

Well, I'm trying to open your mind a little bit. I quote Dr. John Walton: "Genesis 1 as a whole is intended to show that the miserable condition of humanity that motivates the Covenant in chapter 12 is not the result of some defect in God's creative work. On the contrary, God made everything just right and set it up to function properly within his purposes. The Bible claims the sovereign work of God, who maintains and sustains the functions of the cosmos and his own purposes within it. As H. C. Brichto rhapsodizes, 'The God of Creation is the guarantee of Order, the repudiation of Accident or Chance.' "

In the ancient world something came into existence when it was separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name. In the Ritual of Amun, the first god arises on his own from the primeval waters (separates himself from them) and then separates into millions. You'll notice that Genesis 1 is replete with separations and functionality (the separation of light and darkness for the functions of day and night, the separation of the firmament, the separation of the land and sea, etc.)

If you look at *bara’* (created; made) in the OT, the subject is always God. The objects are really unusual things, in the categories of abstractions (purity, righteousness), people groups (the nations, Jerusalem). It is never talking about making a thing, but an abstraction rather than material things. It never refers to materials because it is not talking about making a thing but something more abstract, as if in English we said "I created a masterpiece." You "create" havoc. It has nothing to do with manufacture, and not with things. The thrust of the verb is not that God manufactured out of something or not out of something, but that God assigned roles and functions.

The essence of the word *bara’* concerns bringing heaven and earth into existence focusing on operation through organization and assignment of roles and functions. Even in English we use the verb "create" within a broad range of contexts, but rarely apply it to material things (i.e., parallel in concept to "manufacture"). One can create a piece of art, but that expression does not suggest manufacture of the canvas or paint. Even more abstractly, one can create a situation (e.g., havoc) or a condition (an atmosphere). In these cases, the verb indicates the establishment of a role or function. The text asserts that in the seven-day initial period God brought the cosmos into operation (which defines existence) by assigning roles and function.

In the ancient world, their concern (in all the ancient mythologies) was not material origins but order and function. Something existed when it had a function—a role to play. All of their cosmogonies pertained to functionality, not material origins. in the Babylonian Creation account, bringing the cosmos into existence begins “when on high no name was given in heaven, nor below was the netherworld called by name… When no gods at all had been brought forth, none called by names, no destinies ordained, then were the gods formed." In the earlier Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld, the first couple of lines read: "After heaven had been moved away from earth, After earth had been separated from heaven, After the name of man had been fixed…" In Egyptian accounts existence was associated with something having been differentiated. The god Atum is conceptualized as the primordial monad—the singularity embodying all the potential of the cosmos, from whom all things were separated and thereby created.

And remember I said God is the creator. The Bible is firm on that one. But that's not what Genesis 1 is about.

[Rogue]

> "Genesis 1 as a whole is intended to show that the miserable condition of humanity that motivates the Covenant in chapter 12 is not the result of some defect in God's creative work...."

Clearly not the same book as I'm talking about. I mean Genesis as the first book of the Christian bible.

> In the ancient world something came into existence when it was separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name.

Yea, so what? It doesn't matter if I draw something from the ether and give it form, or make it just go * poof *, it is still God creating it. Even if God did in fact create the earth from water, I think most people would agree that is still "creating" from the modern standard. So, Genesis 1 is about creating. I mean sure, the purpose of the sun isn't heat, light or even day and night, it's for astrology, but you can't just declare that despite it not existing before that, the creation didn't happen, because the creation was accompanied by a purpose.

(The rest follows the same premise, that because everything comes from water, ether or "space", "creation" is somehow metaphorical.)

[jimwalton]

I would say with some confidence that you're missing the whole point. The Bible is about God's contract with humanity: Who he is, who we are, how things got the way they are and God's contract to do something about it; what he plans to do, and the consequences if we comply and the consequences if we defy him. It's a covenant (Old Covenant, New Covenant). If Genesis 1 were about material origins we would expect it to start with nothing; if it's about order and function we would expect it to start with chaos and disorder. Gen. 1.1 is a title, and Gn. 1.2 speaks of chaos and disorder. Genesis 1 is about God giving order to the world, as I mentioned, in parallel with what ancient Near Easterners thought and what their cosmogony concerns were (not material origins, but order and function).

> Yea, so what? Doesn't matter if I draw something from the ether and give it form, or make it just go * poof * , it is still God creating it.

That's what I'm telling you. It's not about God "giv[ing] it form" or making anything go poof. It's about function and order, not materiality. That's what I wrote. The word "create" is about function, not form.

And, by the way, nothing here is metaphorical. Don't even go there. I didn't.

[Eric the Great]

Okay. I disagree with your assessment, but that's cool. A number of people have obviously put some thought into it. I suppose time will tell if this new way of looking at Genesis gains traction. I suspect not because people want to know beginnings. If not, what would ever be the point of creating gods and creation stories, and why else would Evolution Theory and Big Bang cosmology be so threatening to people?

Your purpose-driven theory suggests a role of God as Gardener. Christianity has certainly proved itself resilient (and flexible), so I can't deny it's a good possibility it may continue to thrive through changing the public's understanding.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your post, but as a Christian I don't find evolution theory and Big Bang Cosmology a threat. Truth is truth, and we have to follow truth wherever it leads, regardless of the source. If it's true, it's true no matter what discipline. The truths of chemistry should be able to stand beside the truths of biology.

I don't suggest God as Gardener. I suggest him as Sovereign who brings order to the cosmos, not a landscaper touching up the aesthetics. He is not just bringing order, moreover, but framing purpose and determining functionality, tasks that far supersede the small profession of gardener.

Thanks for your comment, though. I appreciate the dialogue.

[Rogue]

> I strongly disagree. From the opening words to the closing, it's a contract.

The opening words occur before humans exist! How is that a contract with humans?

BTW, I just did a contract with you. It's a mortgage. You owe me $100,000. You need to pay it by tomorrow. Sorry you weren't here when you didn't agree to it...

What isn't fair for humans is that much less fair for a maximally good being.

> God starts and finishes by ordering a cosmos.

You're still on about "ordering" while ignoring "creating". Oddly, you still haven't suggested how it's relevant. He did something, completely independent of humans, prior to humans existing, yet it is part of an agreement with humans?? How does that work?

> He speaks his covenant with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and through Jesus.

WRONG!!! He speaks his covenants with Noah, Moses and Abram (later, Abraham). Provide the verses for the covenants with Isaac, Jacob, David and Jesus.

> The covenant flows through its pages like the Amazon River.

Well that's just silly, unless what you mean is that it makes it all wet, muddy and illegible.

> The Bible is the written contract between God and humanity through which he reveals his true nature.

Again, there are three separate contracts between God and humanity (and Christianity claims God has unilaterally vacated at least one, possibly two, of those.)

Provide the verses.

> that's not what Genesis 1 is about.

Yes, it is. Let's say I want to "order" my room, and "assign meaning"... Now, I really have no f**king clue what you mean by those things. If I "make dinner", I am "creating" it, but at no point do I need to add in "purpose" or "meaning". The purpose and meaning is to eat it, yet I could just as easily throw it away. There is no inherent purpose or meaning, and I defy you to demonstrate some tangible purpose or meaning in the universe for anything at all. Shouldn't be hard, since everything has at least some.

Anyrate, I'm going to order and assign meaning to the mess in my room. So I put up shelves... Wait, no I don't, that'd be "creating". Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, I just go through the room and point and stuff, and say "That's good. And that's good...."? (Again, I have no clue what the f**k this is supposed to mean.)

Genesis 1 does include describing everything (though the same exact way, but again, I'm not clear on what the f**k it means to name something), but it also has those things coming into existence. That is creation.

Now, I really don't care. Not only is it a myth, and you are a random person on the internet who just happens to have some weird religious conspiracy theory. It doesn't change anything at all in terms of our original discussion. But if you're right, then God didn't create anything, merely assigned purpose and order or whatever. You claim he created stuff, but you don't even have scriptural support for that, and obviously there's no evidence for God, let alone anything about God, aside from scripture. To put it simply, you're making shit up. God is not said to be the creator, rather the orderer. He merely created some weird vague "purpose" for stuff that already existed. I'm fine with that. Indeed, I actually agree that God is an irrelevant, meaningless concept.

> If you look at bara’ (created; made) in the OT, the subject is always God.

Made is וַיַּ֣עַשׂ (way-ya-‘aś). He is specifically described as having "made" the sky, the sun and the moon, stars and wild animals... None of those are abstract. Indeed, Pharoah had a birthday cake made for himself! (Genesis 40:20). Same word.

http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/1-7.htm

> The essence of the word bara’

Don't really give a shit about that word. It's not what's used in Genesis 1. I have no clue where you're getting this from, but it's blatantly wrong.

[jimwalton]

> The opening words

The opening words, meaning Genesis 1, not "in the".

> You're still on about "ordering" while ignoring "creating"

You must not have read what I wrote. One of the things I said was, "In the ancient world something came into existence when it was separated out as a distinct entity, given a function, and given a name." In the ancient mindset, ordering was creating.

> Oddly, you still haven't suggested how it's relevant.

Of course I did. I said it's relevant because that was the concern of cosmogony in the ancient world. Material origins were of no particular concern to them; what mattered was functionality. And it matters to us as well, that the universe is a place of order, functionality, and purpose. It's the foundation of science.

> Provide the verses for the covenants with Isaac, Jacob, David and Jesus.

Isaac: Gn. 26.24
Jacob: Gn. 35.9-12
David: 2 Sam. 7.10-16
Jesus: Matt. 26.28; Heb. 7.22

> Provide the verses.

The word "covenant" is used 332 times in the Bible. That's major. God covenants with his people over and over about his presence, their destiny as a people, and the land. It's one of the most major themes of the Bible.

> Now, I really have no f***ing clue what you mean by those things.

Wow, you are SO angry. Chill, bro. The days of "creation" are more like making a home than building a house. It's more about what God was doing with it than that he was making it. Up in Vermont people buy old school houses and make them into homes to live in. They are giving the material that is already there a new purpose, a new function. Reordering it, so to speak, as they created their home in it. That's what I'm talking about.

> Not only is it a myth

Well, here you've betrayed your bias. No wonder you can't understand what I'm saying. You've already closed your mind in the discussion.

> then God didn't create anything

That's not what I said at all. I specifically said that God DID create, but that's not what Gn. 1 is about. Neh. 9.6;Ps. 96.5; John 1.3; Col. 1.16; Heb. 1.2 and dozens of others are very clear that God is the creator.

> you are a random person on the internet

Just because I'm on the Internet doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. But if it does, then your comments are suspect also.

> Made is וַיַּ֣עַשׂ (way-ya-‘aś).

'Asa is used in Gn. 1.7, 16, 25, and 26. But it's a word that also most of the time does not pertain to the manufacture of material objects. It is used as "do" 1560 times: do right, do God’s commands, do mightily, perform a work, etc. It's also used abstractly, such as "make a name" for oneself, or "make an offering." Sometimes it's used to describe the making of an object (a birthday cake), but most of the time, no.

> Don't really give a shit about that word. It's not what's used in Genesis 1. I have no clue where you're getting this from, but it's blatantly wrong.

Genesis 1.1: "In the beginning God created (bara') the heavens and the earth." It's also in v. 21, and in v. 27 three times. It's in Gen. 2.3 & 4.

I would prefer to have a dialogue with you rather than have you ranting all over the place. You're presupposing the narrative is a myth, but your understandings of it are distorted, so I'm suspicious that you've made a decision based on misinformation. I'm glad to talk with you more.