While there is a fair amount of material on Genesis 1 on this blog, much of it is pointing out limitations in some readings rather than addressing the text as it is. There is some fantastic material (and not so great stuff as well) around.
Bro David Brown has an interesting and well reasoned series of articles on his blog here. COD maintains the literality of the serpent (along with the special creation of Adam and Eve), however despite some differences there is a lot of value in David’s well reasoned work.
In July 2017 The Lampstand Magazine included a unfortunate and inaccurate insert on evolutionary creation. This post deals with their astray commentary on Gen 1-3 in the insert table. Below is a preproduction of their table on Gen 1-3 with a simple repudiation underneath Continue reading
For more detail see this post.
STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars have defined the raqiac (fyqr, “firmament”) of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome over the earth.1 Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present, however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse.2 Some conservatives have taken special pains to reject the concept of a solid dome on the basis that the Bible also refers to the heavens as a tent or curtain and that refer- ences to windows and pillars of heaven are obviously poetic.3 The word raqiac, they say, simply means “expanse.” They say the understanding of raqiac as a solid firmament rests on the Vulgate’s translation, firmamentum; and that translation rests in turn on the LXX’s translation stere<wma, which simply reflected the Greek view of the heavens at the time the trans- lators did their work.4 The raqiac defined as an atmospheric expanse is the historical view according to modern conservatives; and the modern view of the raqiac as a solid dome is simply the result of forcing biblical poetic language into agreement with a concept found in the Babylonian epic
The historical evidence, however, which we will set forth in concrete detail, shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid and not a merely atmospheric expanse. The grammatical evidence from the OT, which we shall examine later, reflects and confirms this conception Continue reading
Bro Wilfred Lambert was one of the foremost Assyriologists of his generation. He wrote quite explicitly about the connection between ancient near eastern ideas (about which he was an expert) and the impossibility of reconciling Gen 1-3 with science. Some of his specific observations in the following article are:
- The antiquity of the earth and man is unquestionably longer than biblical literalists can allow
- Gen 1 and Gen 2-3 are separate events and cannot be read as literal/scientific accounts
- The solid raqia was a common/borrowed understanding of the sky
- Humanity is far older than 7,000 years
Bro Wilfred was not disfellowshipped for such ideas (for the record – I take elements of Gen 2-3 more literally than he did) Continue reading
When putting forward the principles of marriage, Christ in Mark 7 quotes from both Gen 1 and Gen 2. Does this mean Christ thought the two passages describe the same event/day? No necessarily. He doesn’t say any such thing. All it proves is that both chapters are relevant in considering the principles of God. Hardly a radical idea. Continue reading
Historically many have understood Gen 2 to be an expansion on the detail of Gen 1 – specifically the details of Day 6. This view sees the creation of Adam & Eve as expanding the brief description in Gen1:26 of the call to make man in the image and likeness of God. On closer reading there are contrasts worth considering:
|Man created to have dominion over all the earth v25
||Man created in Eden and works exclusively there until the Fall v8
|Trees were created on day Three v11
||There was no vegetation till after Adam v5, 8-9
|Birds were created on day Five v20 Animals were created on day Six prior to humans v24
||Both birds and animals were formed after Adam v19
|Humans commanded to reproduce v28
||Adam seemingly only knew Eve after the Fall in Gen4:1. Note this failure to procreate is not mentioned as a sin (given the sheep had time to produce a lamb, some 5 odd months had passed since Adam & Eve’s creation presumably).