Tell me more ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

It is sometimes depicted that the basic argument to read "the creation story" (Genesis 1) as a non literal story are modern science and the evolution theory. But I believe that the biggest problem with a literal view is in the text itself. More specific in the differences between the "creation stories" in Genesis 1 and 2.

Order of Gen 1

Vegetation created:

God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds.” It was so. The land produced vegetation – plants yielding seeds according to their kinds, and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. God saw that it was good. (1:11)

Human created:

Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.” (1:26)

Order of Gen 2

No vegetation:

Now no shrub of the field had yet grown on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. (2:5)

Human created:

The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (2:7)

Vegetation created:

The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food. (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.) (2:8-9)

All quotes are from the NET Bible.

Question

Is there a way to make a strong argument that both those stories are to be read literally (as if it was written by a modern historian)? How could those different accounts be merged?

share|improve this question
2  
"When I read it again is sounds like I'm more after promoting my view then asking a question." I think the question might be better for the site if you rephrase as just a question, and provide your own views as an answer—if you are willing to put the effort into doing that it will also make it easier for others to post their views as answers. – Jack Douglas Nov 28 '12 at 13:25
Coming from a tradition where the Bible is read very literal I try to do just that whenever I feel it's true to the text. But I tend to (in the light of these differences) argue that though these text certainly are "true" they are not written as "history" in a modern sense. I do believe that it's hard to find compelling reasons to merge the two stories. You can of course use the explanation that they are seen from different perspective and if we had ALL the context we would see how they fit together. But I really have a hard time seeing how they would harmonize. Though I love too... – Niclas Nilsson Nov 28 '12 at 14:59
I belive the message is not HOW the world was made, but WHY and WHAT IT MEANS. – Niclas Nilsson Nov 28 '12 at 14:59
@JackDouglas You absolutely right. I've done that. – Niclas Nilsson Nov 28 '12 at 19:39

3 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Complete order of events:

  1. I built my house
  2. I had a truck load of plants delivered
  3. I built the driveway
  4. I planted plants along the driveway and around the house

Account of contractor #1:

  1. House was built
  2. Plants were truckloaded in
  3. Driveway was built

Account of contractor #2:

  1. House was built
  2. Driveway was built
  3. Plants were planted around the house

Complaint by town inspection officer:

The stories of both contractors are not consistent. One says plants came first. The other says plants came after the driveway. Which is which?

My take:

I don't understand why people are making a big stink about the creation order just as the allegorical town inspector is making a big stink about the order of vegetation.

Does planting vegetation actually mean truckloading them in too?

People are concocting iotas where none should exist. I remember some religious scriptures warning against creating non-existing iotas.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1 I do think it's a compelling explanation even thought I don't buy into it 100%. I wonder thought what "I had a truck load of plants delivered" could possibly correspond to in the creation stories? That God placed them on earth without planting them? Of course, you can't know and I can't, so maybe it's just a stupid question. But I love if you give it a shoot. – Niclas Nilsson Nov 28 '12 at 19:36
1  
He created vegetation and had them planted on Mars. Or any where besides the garden. – Blessed Geek Nov 29 '12 at 0:36
LOL. Ok I really hope the mars rovers find some traces ;) – Niclas Nilsson Nov 29 '12 at 7:12
1  
Rashi interprets this as the plants having been "queued up" on day 3 but they didn't emerge until later. It seems like a reach to me, but it's the equivalent of having the plants delivered. – Monica Cellio Nov 29 '12 at 17:04
@MonicaCellio That seems plausible... – Niclas Nilsson Nov 30 '12 at 8:13

Eretz in the first account means the entire earth (global sense). In the second account its meaning could be narrower (local sense) as in the term eretz jisrael. The second account would then be of human origin and perspective. Man made of the red soil of the ground, created naked in an empty land. the first living creature.

share|improve this answer
1  
On what do you base the interpretation that the same word means different things in the two chapters? It's possible, but could you show us how you got there, working forward from the text? – Monica Cellio Apr 16 at 12:55
I do believe that the two accounts were put together by later redaction. They are very different. So the different use of eretz is not surprising. I just gained it by employing the context and my desire to let them both live. – hannes Apr 16 at 21:41
1  
Documentary Hypothesis (or similar) is a valid approach to answering questions, but could you spell it out more in your answer? We're looking for answers that show the path to a conclusion rather than just jumping to the end. Teach us to fish by showing your work, in other words. Thanks. – Monica Cellio Apr 16 at 21:43
1  
Thank you for your friendliness. I wish I could do what you say. It takes all my capabilities to write as I do. There is not much more possible for me, I am afraid. (It is the same with all my posts.) I am very impatient. I cannot elaborate. My English is already strained beyond its limits. I would love to learn. Your patience encourages me a lot. Thanks very much! – hannes Apr 16 at 22:05
Thanks for making the effort! Your English is already better than my (insert any second language here). By the way, if you ever want to discuss your answers (or questions), or just get to know some of the people on the site better, drop into Biblical Hermeneutics Chat and say hello. – Monica Cellio Apr 17 at 0:45

Genesis, like all of the Torah, (and I would argue, all of the Bible) is a "woven text." It has warp and weft. The pattern we see in the seven days is actually replicated in miniature in each of the days.

But then, that pattern is also replicated in Genesis 2 in numerous ways. The sevenfold pattern (Creation/Division/Ascension/Testing/Maturity/Conquest/Glorification) is absolutely everywhere. It shapes every single story, and is found within every part of each story.

So the order of events in Genesis 2 is liturgical. It is a recapitulation of the "physical" events in Genesis 1, but zooms in on the "social" events of Day 6. Just as the universe is a cosmic temple in chapter 1, so now Adam is a human temple in chapter 2. If you arrange these chapters in the traditional chiastic manner (like a "greater than" symbol: > ) you can correspond each event. You can even line up the ascension offering in Lev. 1 with the creation week, which means these passages are saying a great deal more about each than we realize, simply by their common structure.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.