Creation vs. Evolution

[boulderjohn]

In the first book of the Bible, called Genesis in Greek and English, and Bereshis in Hebrew, in Chapter 1, we meet ELOHIM, who does all the creating, apparently. Then in the second chapter, we meet JHVH.

They could be totally different personages, or they could be the same.

Correct. And what is our science teacher who is required to teach creation to do with this?

ELOHIM, who is usually described as a spirit with no bodily features, creates the entire universe in 6 days in chapter 1 of Genesis. When he gets around to creating humanity on the 6th day, he creates male and female together.

JHVH, or Yahweh (originally mistranslated as Jehovah), who is a humanlike deity who walks with Adam and Eve in the garden and shows his hindquarters to Moses, creates everything in one day in chapter 2 of Genesis, except he only creates a male, and then decides later to create a female from his rib.

Imagine our biology teacher explaining those two contradictory versions of craetion to a class and then asking them to talk about them from a scientific perspective.

Which one of these Gods did all this creating, anyway? ELOHIM in 6 days, or JHVH in one day?

 

[boulderjohn]

Please helop me with another question. Let's say I am a biology teacher required to teach creationism. I already have to deal with the fact that in Genesis I, ELOHIM creates the universe in 6 days, with man and woman created on the 6th, while in Genesis 2, JHVH creates everything in one day, with man created first and a female created at some unexplained time later. I have to decide which creation story to teach--or do I teach both?

But it is not two creations I must explain to my students, it is three.

Adam and Eve have two children immediately, Abel and Cain. Abel finds favor with God, but Cain does not, for some reason not explained at all. Both seem equally devout. God accepts one offering but not the other.

Cain therefore kills Abel. He evidentally needs anger control classes, but since he and his mother and father are the only humans on Earth, none are available to him at the moment. God decides to exile him for the murder of his brother, but Cain protests that when he goes in exile to the various cities of the world, people will kill him. God therefore puts a mark on him to protect him. Cain therefore goes out to a land east of Eden and takes a wife.

How does our Biology teacher explain the origin of the citiies Cain is afraid to enter, and how does our biology teacher explain the existence of Cain's wife?

 

[Thalassamania]

... and then there's all them thar begatting.

 

[boulderjohn]

... and then there's all them thar begatting.

But that doesn't last that long. When you have only a few thousand years of world existence to cover, how many begats can there be? Especially since some people lived 900 years or so back then.

 

[Thalassamania]

Kind of extreme K strategists.

 

[deco_martini]

Then in the second chapter, we meet JHVH.

Spoken like someone just looking up info the internets and then pretending to be a scholar.

The right answer (to make it look like you know what you are talking about) is:
Then in the second chapter, we meet YHWH.

JHVH is poor english transliteration.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Sorry, but this is not nearly true.

Try reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman (Harper 2005). There is no such thing as the new testament in original Greek. There are many, many thousands of Greek fragments of new testament documents. Many say different things. Some contradict each other. Attempts to create a Greek new testament were first made in the middle ages, using the only ones at hand to the compiler and obviously missing the thousands that were not on hand.

The author of Misquoting Jesus was a dedicated Christian graduate of the Moody Bible Institute who studied the new testament Greek scriptures in great detail before realizing that there is no authoritative body of writing and eventually losing his faith.

I think you should expand your reading.

Some of the original documents reveal some interesting debates in the early church. For example, was Jesus a man who suffered and then became God, or was he God all along? Depending upon how you see it, the crucifixion can be seen as a bad weekend for someone knowing he was already immortal rather than some sort of great sacrifice. Different factions in the early church had different feelings about this, and when they wrote their versions of the scriptures, they made subtle changes that reflected their beliefs. Thus, anyone holding to any of the various versions of this debate can point to "original" Greek documents to support a position. Only one version eventually made it into the currently accepted Bible.

Another controversy is the role of Jews in the crucifixion. Most scholars believe the full scale blaming of the Jews for the crucifixion, so clearly emphasized in Mel Gibson's movie, is a fabrication based on the early need to portray the religion as not being in conflict with Roman authority. Without going into detail here, the story makes absolutely no sense to anyone with any understanding of the laws and customs of that time period. The Romans would not bow to the pressure of a people they had conquered and impose a Roman punishment on someone whom they had found guiltless at trial. They allowed religious freedom, and if they were under the belief that the Jewish authorities held Jesus guilty of a regious wrong, they would have turned him over for a Jewish punishment--stoning.

Lots of people had lots of ideas and they tried to teach all kinds of things in the early church. Keeping the curch "on track" took considerable effort. What was being taught by Paul and the others?

Thus, the old and new testaments provide a comforting simplicity only to those who know nothing about their origins.

Demonstrably false. You make it sound as though nobody who believes has looked any further than the modern easy to read english translations. That's not at all accurate.

 

[Sordello]

I think you should expand your reading.

Lots of people had lots of ideas and they tried to teach all kinds of things in the early church. Keeping the church "on track" took considerable effort. What was being taught by Paul and the others?

Demonstrably false. You make it sound as though nobody who believes has looked any further than the modern easy to read english translations. That's not at all accurate.

I know you are right but, I live in the bible belt. For the most part the story here is the only true translation is the KJV. It is the "Word of God" - so to speak. Do not even try to mention any other translation as you will be shouted as if reading from heretical literature.

I find the KJV almost childlike in its structure. Kind of like reading "Dick and Jane". I just have to keep on the straight and narrow path and accept that all words are the words of god. No matter who utters them or what their intent.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I know you are right but, I live in the bible belt. For the most part the story here is the only true translation is the KJV. It is the "Word of God" - so to speak. Do not even try to mention any other translation as you will be shouted as if reading from heretical literature.

I find the KJV almost childlike in its structure. Kind of like reading "Dick and Jane". I just have to keep on the straight and narrow path and accept that all words are the words of god. No matter who utters them or what their intent.

I understand. Lots of people drive a car and use household appliances without having any clue about what makes them work too.

That works for most people but putting a little more effort in generally leads to greater understanding and, in the case of scripture, often results in stronger faith. For every person who has lost faith as a result of research, there is another who has gained, or increased, faith as a result. I fall into the later group.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Please helop me with another question. Let's say I am a biology teacher required to teach creationism. I already have to deal with the fact that in Genesis I, ELOHIM creates the universe in 6 days, with man and woman created on the 6th, while in Genesis 2, JHVH creates everything in one day, with man created first and a female created at some unexplained time later. I have to decide which creation story to teach--or do I teach both?

I'm not sure what it has to do with biology but Genesis 2 is an elaboration and continues the account.

But it is not two creations I must explain to my students, it is three.

Adam and Eve have two children immediately, Abel and Cain. Abel finds favor with God, but Cain does not, for some reason not explained at all. Both seem equally devout. God accepts one offering but not the other.

How did God clothe Adam and Eve once they had knowledge of good and evil and realized they were naked? Why? What do we find in the rest of the Bible...what do we see used for the temporary atonement of sin? In the end, what serves as the permanent atonement?

Doesn't Gen 4:7 give us some indication that Cain knew what it was to "do well"?

We know why Cain's offering didn't find favor with God and Cain knew it too.

Cain therefore kills Abel. He evidentally needs anger control classes, but since he and his mother and father are the only humans on Earth, none are available to him at the moment. God decides to exile him for the murder of his brother, but Cain protests that when he goes in exile to the various cities of the world, people will kill him. God therefore puts a mark on him to protect him. Cain therefore goes out to a land east of Eden and takes a wife.

Does the Bible tell us about all the children of Adam and Eve? It says in Genesis 5:4 that Adam had sons and daughters. Does the Bible tell us when Cain takes a wife?