Dictionary of Meaning

<<Back
Please select a letter:
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0-9

Creation according to Genesis

*** Shopping-Tip: Creation according to Genesis
{{creationism2}} '''Creation according to Genesis''' refers to the description of the creation of the heavens and the earth by God, as described in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. The text spans Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the book of Genesis. The [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm original Hebrew] has been translated into English on innumerable occasions; the most famous of these is the [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible,_King_James,_Genesis King James version]. Genesis is part of the canonical scriptures for both Christianity and Judaism, and to a lesser degree Islam, and thus to believers is taken as being of spiritual significance. For a discussion of the comparison between the first two chapters of Genesis and the theory of evolution, see Creation-evolution controversy Creation vs. evolution debate. The opening of Genesis tells the Bible biblical story of creation. Genesis 1 verse 1 begins with the description of how Names of God in Judaism God (Elohim) created Heaven and Earth. The text thus begins by establishing a series of dualisms (heaven and earth, dark and light, day and night etc) by which the created order is progressively established, with God creating by means of the movement of his "spirit" (ruach) moving across the deeps (tehwom). Creation is established both by speaking (e.g. "Let there be light") and actively working ("dividing the light from the darkness") over a period of six days. For those that take Genesis as a literal account, this indicates what occurred on six successive days of 24 hours each. Alternatively, there are those that point to the fact that the first day occurred before the creation of sun and moon (on the fourth day) thus justifying an allegorical interpretation of the story. Many of this persuasion claim it to be a description of humankind's development of a relationship between creation and the creator. Those who argue that it is literal point out that God doesn't ''need'' the sun to produce light, since we are told that the glory of God itself is brighter than the sun. Christians have been considering the idea of the Allegorical interpretations of Genesis creation history as an allegory (instead of an historical description) long before the development of Darwinism. A notable example is Saint Augustine (5th century) that, on theological grounds, took the view that everything in the universe was created by God in the same instant, and not in seven days like a plain account of Genesis would require. [http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html] Today, the level to which the story is taken at its literal meaning is in part related to how fundamentalism theologically conservative or Liberal Christianity theologically liberal the interpreter is, and the degree to which one accepts or rejects a belief in the inerrant nature of the Biblical text.

The Story
According to the version found in Genesis 1, the story begins by saying "In the beginning, there was nothing," and then the six-day creation begins: *'''First day:''' Light was created. Light is the most important element for life to exist. This light is not the sun or stars, as these are created later. It is described by scholars as a primordial light. The light is divided from the darkness, and called good by God. The fact that there was evening and ''then'' there was morning is the reason that the Jewish day starts at sunset. *'''Second day:''' Heaven and the sky are created. There is water in the sky separated from water on the earth. The creation of water is not explicitly described. *'''Third day:''' Land is created, separated from the waters, and named. The water is also named. Grass, herbs and fruit-bearing trees are created, and presumably also other forms of plant life. *'''Fourth day:''' There were lights made in the sky, to appear regularly, aiding time-keeping. Two particularly large lights were made, the lesser one the Moon and the greater one the Sun. *'''Fifth day:''' Air and sea creatures are created, including "great sea-monsters". They are commanded to be fruitful and multiply. *'''Sixth day:''' Land animals are created, and God calls them good. Man and woman are created in God's own image, and are described by God as "very good". **'''Dusk of the Sixth Day:''' According to a midrash on the creation story [http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=401], at dusk, God created a number of specific items, scattered around the world and possibly throughout time. Scholars disagree on whether there were 10 or 13 objects made. These are: ***The Cavern (that swallowed Korach) ***The Well (that supplied the Israelites in the wilderness) ***The Mouth of the Ass (which spoke to Balaam) ***The Rainbow (given after the Noah's Ark flood) ***The Manna (that supplied the Israelites in the wilderness) ***The Magical Staff (used by Moses) ***The Shamir (that broke stones during the building of the temple) ***The Shape of the Writing on the Ten Commandments Stone Tablets ***The Writing on the Stone Tablets ***The Stone Tablets ***There are also three disputed objects, which are: ****The Grave of Moses ****The Destructive Forces that Afflict Mankind ****The Ram of Abraham *'''Seventh day:''' God rested, as did man and woman, who were made in God's image.

Translation and authorship
The text does not name its author, and a variety of theories have arisen regarding its authorship.

Mosaic authorship hypothesis
Image:Creation of stars and planets.jpg thumb|200px|left|[[Michelangelo's painting of the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel shows the creation of the stars and planets as described in the first chapter of Genesis.]] According to many of the Hebrew and Christian traditions, the first 5 books of the Bible, or Pentateuch, were written by Moses. John the Evangelist presents Jesus as having accepted Mosaic authorship (John 5:46–47). It is often accepted that parts of the Pentateuch were added by later authors. Most commonly cited is Deuteronomy 34, which records the death of Moses. Many Liberal Christians and unbelievers claim that this shows that the claim of total and exclusive Mosaic authorship is disproven. Traditionalists claim that it was Joshua appended this to Moses' writings, just as many copies of Shakespeare mention his death. But like the rival claims about Shakespearian authorship, this , so some Liberals and unbelievers claim, opens the door to the questioning of the authorship of other passages of Genesis. There are, however, a number of other passages that may indicate that Moses wrote texts, which may be part of the Pentateuch as a whole; e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24, but no passage explicitly ascribes the book of Genesis to Moses. (Benware 1993) However, traditionalists argue that Moses seems to have all the right criteria to be the author. The books show immense familiarity with the customs, geography, fauna and flora of Egypt, which is consistent with an author who grew up there. But there is a curious naivety about Palestine, which seems inconsistent with being written after Israel was a nation.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/moses.asp] Several possibilities have been suggested as to how Moses came to write the text: *he may have received it all by oral traditions, passed down over the centuries from father to son, which he then collected and wrote down, (Morris 1981). *he may have taken actual written records of the past as part of his education as an Egyptian prince, collected them, and brought them together into a final form. (Douglas 1990). Or as leader of the Israelites, he may have been in possession of written records of the past handed down from the Israelite ancestors, thus providing the possibility of direct witness to the events by the authors. *he may have been given visions of the great events of the past, which he then put down in his own words. (Morris 1981). *he may have received it all by direct revelation from God, which Genesis seems to indicate. Image:Creation of Light.png 200px|thumb|right|''Creation of Light'', by [[Gustave Doré. The painting depicts a literal representation of Genesis 1:1 ("Let there be light").]] Some believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Others believe that Moses wrote the text, but not under any divine inspiration. Critics argue that belief in Mosaic authorship is unjustified because the text does not claim to be written by Moses; because large portions of the text were written about events long before Moses lived, or (in a few cases) after he died, were therefore not firsthand knowledge, and must have originated elsewhere (although there is no proof for this); and because stylistic, vocabulary, and structural changes exist in the text indicating multiple authors and redaction. A computer study was undertaken to determine the authorship of Genesis. The study concluded that it was produced by a single author, and that the author had major Egyptian influences. ''Omni'' magazine of August 1982 says: :After feeding the 20,000 Hebrew words of Genesis into a computer at Technion University in Israel, researchers found many sentences that ended in verbs and numerous words of six characters or more. Because these idiosyncratic patterns appear again and again, says project director Yehuda Radday, it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.

JEPD [http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html]authorship hypothesis
''Main article: Documentary hypothesis'' Modern Textual criticism textual critics posit that the first two chapters of Genesis are a composite of two different literary strands: the "Jehovist" (10th century BC), and the "Priestly" (7th century BC); and that the strands were compiled by an unknown redactor. One such scholar wrote, "The book of Genesis, like the other books of the Hexateuch, was not the production of one author. A definite plan may be traced in the book, but the structure of the work forbids us to consider it as the production of one writer." (Spurell xv). The postulated source streams include: *Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, which exclusively uses the word ''Elohim'' to describe God, is ascribed to the Priestly source, which biblical critics believe to have used only ''Elohim'' until the revelation of the Name (in Exodus 6:3). *Genesis 2:4 to 2:24, which exclusively uses the words ''Yahweh Elohim'' to describe God, is ascribed to the Yawhist, who biblical critics believe used ''Yahweh'' exclusively. ''See also: Names of God in Judaism'' Textual critics assert that the two passages tell the story of creation in different ways, and that there are inconsistencies between the two accounts. They conclude that the most probable explanation for the two inconsistent accounts is that a redactor combined the two independent creation stories into the final text which we have today. Bible defenders argue that the inconsistencies are apparent rather than real.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp] Those rejecting the methodology of textual criticism argue that when a biblical text is measured against the scholar's own concept of unity and found wanting, this probably says more about the biblical scholar's sense of unity than about the text's prehistory. (Carr 24). The JEPD hypothesis has also been criticized on the grounds that it apparently must even attribute different parts of individual sentences to different authors, since many sentences in Genesis refer to God both as ''Elohim'' and ''Jehovah''. A good example is Genesis 2:4 through the end of chapter 3, where all 19 times the name "Jehovah" is found, it is followed immediately by "Elohim" (God). Many of Julius Wellhausen's assumptions are no longer held today, e.g. that there was no writing at the time Moses was alleged to have written. Also, J. P. Holding has shown that Deuteronomy is written as a suzerain–vassal treaty in the form common from 1400 to 1200 BC, centuries before the time Wellhausen thought it was written.[http://www.tektonics.org/jedp/deut.html]

Theories of textual interpretation

The single account theory
Some scholars believe that the Genesis account is a report of creation, which is divided into two parts, written from different perspectives: the first part, from 1:1 to 2:3, describes the creation of the Earth from God's perspective; the second part, from 2:4-24, describes the creation of the Garden of Eden from Humanity's perspective. One such scholar wrote, "[T]he strictly complementary nature of the accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting." (Kitchen 116-117).

The dual account theory
Other scholars, particularly those ascribing to textual criticism and the Documentary hypothesis, believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are two separate accounts of the creation. (They agree that the "first chapter" should include the first three verses of chapter 2.) One such scholar wrote: "The book of Genesis, like the other books of the Hexateuch, was not the production of one author. A definite plan may be traced in the book, but the structure of the work forbids us to consider it as the production of one writer." (Spurell xv). The distinction between the 'two' creation stories is concealed by some translations, such as the New International Version. For some religious writers, such as Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, the existence of two separate creation stories is beyond doubt, and thus needs to be interpreted as having divine importance. The two chapters, described as the P-source and the J-source respectively, have been described as a "project plan" and a report. This would mean that the P-source (chapter 1) was how God intended the creation to turn out, and the J-source was how it actually did.

The dual perspective theory
Other scholars, such as Pamela Tamarkin Reis, assert that the text can be read either as one account or as two accounts from different perspectives, as the text uses a literary device to describe the same events first from the perspective of God, and second from the perspective of Humanity. According to the documentary hypothesis the existence of two creation stories is the result of the merging of two distinct traditions into one unified text. Literary and linguistic analysis by various authors offer a number of theories concerning modifications and editing which produced the text that exists today. Some readers of the Bible deny that two distinct creation stories exist; they have created a detailed set of religious readings which attempt to show that any differences are only apparent, but not actually real.

Specific issues of textual interpretation

Literary intent
* Some understand the passage literally, as meaning that God created the Earth exactly as described. * Some interpret the passage figuratively, as meaning that God created the Earth and Life by his own power, that he created it Good, that he entrusted it to Humankind; since they see such power in the allegory, they see no reason to necessarily understand the passage literally. Those who interpret the passage literally point out that there is no scriptural basis for not believing it literally, and the passages do say ''literally'' that God created the Earth and Life by His own power.

"In the Beginning"
* Some understand the text to refer to the creation of the entire universe, and translate the first verse of Genesis as "In the Beginning." Related to this is the belief in ''creatio ex nihilio'', creation out of nothing. * Some understand the text to refer to the creation of the entire universe, but suggest that God must have withdrawn some of his own being to make room for the creation. Related to this are various beliefs meant to explain the presence of evil in the world * Some understand the text to refer to the creation of order in the universe. They point out that ''In the beginning'' is not a literal translation of the Hebrew text into English. The Hebrew text lacks the definite article, and many have suggested it should be translated as ''When God began to create the heaven and the earth.'' This interpretation implies that there was unordered matter in the universe before God began to order it, and implicitly rejects the doctrine of ''creatio ex nihilio''.

Timescale
*The dual account theory asserts that the first story describes the creation of plants, animals, and humans over a period of many days, the second story describes these things of happening on the same day. *The single account theory asserts that the first segment of the story describes the creation of plants, animals, and humans of the course of several days, and the second segment picks up where the first leaves off, focusing on the creation of the Garden of Eden, and the creation of domesticable plants, ("plants of the field and herbs of the field");

Use of different words for God
The first section exclusively refers to ''God'' as Elohim (often translated God), whereas the second exclusively uses the composite name Yahweh Elohim (the former word is often "translated" ''Lord'' or ''LORD'', though it is sometimes rendered as ''God''). *The single account theory asserts that Hebrew scriptures use different names for ''God'' throughout, depending on the characteristics of ''God'' which the author wished to emphasize. They argue that across the Hebrew scriptures, the use of ''Elohim'' in the first segment suggests "strength," focusing on God as the mighty Creator of the universe, while the use of Yahweh in the second segment suggested moral and spiritual natures of deity, particularly in relationship to the man. (Stone 17). *The dual account theory asserts that the two segments using different words for ''God'' indicates different authorship and two distinct narratives, in accord with the Documentary hypothesis.

Writing style
Though not so obvious in translation, the Hebrew text of the two sections differ both in the type of words used and in stylistic qualities. The first section flows smoothly, whereas the second is more interested in pointing out side details, and does so in a more point of fact style. *One of the principles of textual criticism is that large differences in the type of words used, and in the stylistic qualities of the text, should be taken as support for the existence of two different authors. Proponents of the two-account hypothesis point to the attempts (e.g. ''The Book of J'' by David Rosenburg) to separate the various authors of the Torah claimed by the Documentary Hypothesis into distinct and sometimes contradictory accounts. *Proponents of the single account argue that style differences need not be indicative of multiple authors, but may simply indicate the purpose of different passages. For example, Kenneth Kitchen, a retired Archaeology Professor of the University of Liverpool, has argued (1966) that stylistic differences are meaningless, and reflect different subject matter. He supports this with the evidence of a biographical inscription of an Egyptian official in 2400 B.C., which reflects at least four different styles, but which is uniformly supposed to possess unity of authorship. Similarly, the different names of God reflect his different attributes.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/name.asp]

The likelihood of parallel inconsistent accounts
The single account theory asserts that it is unlikely that the text would have survived for three to four thousand years in such an obviously contradictory state, and that it is therefore much more likely that the two segments are consistent with each other, with the first being general and the second being more specific to the creation of humans and the garden. However, those who argue that the differences in the accounts are irreconcilable point to several historic factors that would have allowed the contradictory accounts to survive uncorrected. Prior to the modern era, factors that would have made correction difficult included mass illiteracy, hand copying of manuscripts prior to the printing press, early rules preventing translations of the scriptures into common languages, church discouragement and punishment of critical analysis of scripture, and the church's canonization of texts as they were. In early times, there were few incentives or opportunities to criticize or correct scriptural text. How apparent the differences are depends on the translations. For example, some modern English Bibles translate the two different words for God--''Yahweh'' and ''Elohim''--both as ''God.'' Others, however, such as the King James and Revised Standard Versions, translate ''Elohim'' as ''God'', and ''Yahweh'' as ''Lord''. In addition, some translations (e.g. the New International Version) have rendered the start of the second section as ''the day when'', since the Hebrew ''beyom'' ("in the day") is an idiomatic expression for "when". So the NIV regards Ch. 2 as a review of past events--rather than the literalistic ''on that day'', as if it were a first recording of events.

The dual perspective theory
Image:Creation of Adam.jpg right|thumbnail|250px|[[Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam (1512) is the most famous Fresco in the Sistine Chapel]] Biblical scholar Pamela Tamarkin Reis (2001) proposes that Genesis 1 and 2 can be seen as either one story from two perspectives or two separate stories. Both are appropriate. She draws the parallel with the ancient story-telling technique of telling the same sequence of events through the eyes of several different people. This method is best known from its use by Akira Kurosawa Kurosawa in the movie Rashomon (movie) Rashomon. One can make sense of that movie either as four different stories or as four people having four different realistic narratives of the same story. Ms. Reis analyzes Genesis 1 as God's narrative and Genesis 2 as man's narrative. In Genesis 1, the style of narration is very orderly and logical, proceeding from basics like heaven and earth, through plants and animals to man and woman. And everything is "good" or "very good." Ms. Reis suggests that the story-teller has a bit of whimsy in noting how perfect everything is from God's view. In contrast, in Genesis 2, man tells the story from his own self-centered perspective. Man is created first, and there are a few flaws. For example, Man is alone, without a woman (in contrast to Genesis 1, where the two were created simultaneously). Where Genesis 1 repeats the phrase "heaven and earth" several times, Genesis 2 uses "earth and heaven." Moreover, Genesis 2 contains a notice that "there was no one to till the ground." The implication that the ground must be tilled contrasts with the completeness implied in Genesis 1. Even the words used in Genesis 1 suggest serenity, the godly plane of existence. For example, in Genesis 1, the word for God is Elohim, the generic and distant God, while God's name in Genesis 2 is the personal and sacred YHWH Elohim, the Lord of Gods. Even the verb of making is different in the two narratives; in the first narrative the verb is the Hebrew "arb" which means "create from nothing," something that only God can do. In contrast, the verb in the second narrative means "make;" God "made earth and heaven." Furthermore, Man and Woman are both formed from pre-existing matter, in contrast to their creation ''ex nihilo'' in the first chapter. This brings God's act within the range of human experience. There are also details about where to find gold and lapis lazuli--but only in the second narrative. Ms. Reis argues that Genesis 1 and 2 make sense either way, just as for Kurosawa's Rashomon. They make sense as two different stories. Or they make sense as two narratives of the same story from different personal perspectives: that of God and that of man.

References and Resources
* '''Rouvière, Jean-Marc''', (2006), ''Brèves méditations sur la création du monde'' L'Harmattan, Paris. * Bernhard Anderson Anderson, Bernhard W. ''Creation in the Old Testament'' (editor) (ISBN 0800617681) * Bernhard Anderson Anderson, Bernhard W. ''Creation Versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible'' (ISBN 159752042X) * Bernhard Anderson Anderson, Bernhard W. ''Understanding the Old Testament'' (ISBN 0139483993) * Reis, Pamela Tamarkin (2001). Genesis as ''Rashomon'': The creation as told by God and man. ''Bible Review'' '''17''' (3). * Kitchen, Kenneth, ''Ancient Orient and Old Testament'', London: Tyndale, 1966, p. 118 * G.J. Spurrel, ''Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis'', Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896. * Davis, John, ''Paradise to Prison - Studies in Genesis'', Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975, p. 23 * P.N. Benware, "Survey of the Old Testament", Moody Press, Chicago IL, (1993). * Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, ''David The Book of J'', Random House, NY, USA 1990. * Friedman, Richard E. ''Who Wrote The Bible?'', Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987. * Stone, Nathan, ''Names of God'', Chicago: Moody Press, 1944, p. 17. * Nicholson, E. ''The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen'' Oxford University Press, 2003. * Tigay, Jeffrey, Ed. ''Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism'' University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986 * Wiseman, P. J. ''Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis'' Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, USA 1985 * J.D. Douglas et al, "Old Testament Volume: New Commentary on the Whole Bible," Tyndale, Wheaton, Illinois Wheaton, IL, (1990)

See also
*Origin belief *Allegorical interpretations of Genesis

External links

- Old Earth Interpretation of Genesis
- A modified version of P. J. Wiseman's hypothesis
- The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
- The Multiple Authorship of the Books Attributed to Moses
- Hexaemeron - Catholic Encyclopedia article

Sources for the Biblical text

- Chapter 1 [http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm Chapter 2] (Hebrew-English text)
- Chapter 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen002.html Chapter 2] (King James Version)
- Chapter 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&version=rsv&Go.x=19&Go.y=12 Chapter 2] (Revised Standard Version)
- Chapter 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gen&chapter=002&version=nltp Chapter 2] (New Living Translation)
- Chapter 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&version=nas&Go.x=23&Go.y=16 Chapter 2] (New American Standard Bible)
- Chapter 1 [http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=genesis+2&NIV-UK_version=yes&language=english&x=12&y=6 Chapter 2] (New International Version (UK)) Category:Abrahamic texts Category:Creation stories Category:Creationism

*** Shopping-Tip: Creation according to Genesis