Genesis

Rewriting Gen. 1 against atheistic evolution

Acknowledging that a significant of understanding Genesis chapter 1 is realizing the ANE background against which it was written, Joel Watts, AKA Polycarp, suggests we do the same with our modern backdrop of atheistic evolution. How would you write it?

So, what if we did the same thing today – what if God inspired us today to tell of His power and authority against atheistic evolution? I use this term to note only an evolution which dispenses with God completely and not evolution as a whole which includes theism, etc… Or, perhaps, what if we told the tell that Science tells, but using mythological language? What would it look like?

via Genesis 1: Contra Darwin | Unsettled Christianity.

In the beginning… Let it Dough!

Dec 17th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

2 comments

NY Times blog has Let It Dough! from Christoph Niemann, a very creative take on the creative act. See it all there but a sample:

I am not the only one considering creation

Oct 29th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

No comments yet

And James McGrath has a nice round up as he Explores the Matrix.

Creation and Inerrancy ‘Round the Blogosphere.

Understanding Genesis 2-3 is a “doomed task”

Oct 29th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

3 comments

Or so says reader Dave Wyman. I am very grateful for his comments and wanted to share them and respond to them in a post rather than just in the comments section.

The story of Adam and Eve doesn’t make much sense if we think about it, and it’s not supposed to make sense. That is, like the story of Santa Claus bringing presents to children, the story of Adam and Eve breaks down upon closer inspection.

Like trying to both examine and pinpoint the location of an atom, discussing both the circumstances and the meaning of Adam and Eve’s story is therefore a doomed task.

This is all anyone needs to know, and all we can know: Adam and Eve (stand-ins for you and me) comprehend their mortality. That’s it. Nothing else to see here, folks, move along.

As you might imagine I have to disagree with Dave. The story of Adam and Eve can of course be read on a very surface level and in so doing provide some meaning and context within which the audience is to understand their world. But the story makes even more more sense when we think about it deeply.¹ So examining Gen. 2-3 is not a “doomed task,” rather it is a necessary one.²

I would also argue very strongly that it IS supposed to make sense. We have something that was written, leaving divine inspiration out of the discussion for now, by someone with intent and purpose. The author intended it to have meaning and to convey something to the audience. That is why it is necessary to take the time and effort to consider the story and what meaning and messages might well be in it. Furthermore, the very process of investigation is itself worthwhile and illuminating for the investigator, even if one fails completely to understand the story.

My previous posts make it obvious that I do believe there is a lot more to the story, especially within its canonical context, than simply the contemplation of mortality. There is, for example, the contemplation of morality (odd that only a “t” separates the two words). What does it mean to “know good and evil”? Robert Holmstedt had some great observations on that. Certainly Gen. 2-3 provides us some insight into the author’s view of God and humanity’s relationship to God, creation, and one another. And so on.

Dave’s site, iCyclist, is well worth visiting (as is his photography site). He is, so the site says, “Cycling through the meaning of life with the help of bikes and cameras.” I assume Dave takes pictures along the way as part of contemplating the meaning of life and a way to remember the journeys he has taken. I would suggest that considering the meaning of Genesis serves much the same purpose. These stories are snapshots full of detail and depth and by looking closely we realize there is so very much to see.

As an aside, that the story of Santa Claus does, in fact, also have deeper meaning, especially when one understands more of the historical background to St. Nicolas. [↩]
I should add that if Dave’s point is that trying to understand historical aspects of the story, e.g., where is the Garden located, etc. is doomed to failure, then yes, I would agree with that. But he suggests what the simple meaning of the text is and I too am arguing that there is meaning to the text. [↩]

Genesis of Evil

Oct 28th, 2010

by Christian Brady.

16 comments

My prior post about Gen. 3 and how (and why) Eve and Adam realize that they are naked has generated a lot of excellent comments. Please do be sure to read them all. A number of comments are addressing the origin of evil and I wanted to remind folks of my earlier post from two weeks ago on this topic. I realize that my somewhat unorthodox reading may have been lost within the post since it is a sermon (short homily really) so I have re-presenting the cogent bits here.

… In presenting Adam and Eve with the opportunity to demonstrate their love and obedience to him, God also created the opportunity for sin. Sin did not exist in the Garden prior to this moment but the potential did.

Gen. 3.1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; 5 for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.

We all know the story well, but consider two key points: the serpent does not (strictly speaking) lie and yet God seems to do so. The serpent craftily uses words to persuade Eve (and Adam “who was with her”) that when God said that they would die in the day that they ate the fruit that they would not, but rather they would “be like God, knowing good and evil.” After God discovers their transgression and curses the serpent, the woman, and the man, notice what he says.

Gen. 3.22 Then the LORD God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

God confirms what the serpent said, they have indeed become like God, knowing good and evil,” but the man and the woman don’t die on that day! Clearly God is a liar!

Now many will justify God saying, “They do die ‘in that day’ because they may no longer eat of the tree of life and live forever.” But I think this misses the real point, the momentous event that occurred. In the moment that Eve and Adam ate of that fruit the potential for disobedience became the reality of sin. And in response the justice of God was meted out and so too was his mercy.

Just as the actions of the man and the woman brought about the reality of suffering and death into the world it also brought about God’s mercy and grace. So long as they were obedient, they could do anything in the Garden they liked! just not eat of that one tree, so long as they were obedient, God did not need to show mercy and grace. When tested we humans succumbed to temptation and when tested God responded with mercy.