Historically, the creation controversy stems from disagreement over scientific method, which is deemed as the crux of the debate. Yet, little or no attention is given to the debate surrounding the interpretation dilemma of the Genesis creation text, which some deem as the real crux.
Advocates of interpreting Genesis literally view the first creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) as a documentary on how God created, and the second creation account (Genesis 2:4-9) is either ignored, or its existence as a separate account is denied since it contains a different chronology. Opponents to the literalist view argue that defining the literary genre of the first account as historical narrative is a misunderstanding of the role of the text.
Discussion of views other than those dependent upon a literal interpretation prompts an immediate concern—fear that a non-literal interpretation invalidates the Genesis story. But there is one interpretation that finds a higher value in the story. During the nearly half-century of debate, the spotlight has focused almost solely on the literal interpretation of the first account, thus leaving the other interpretation virtually unknown. Many do not realize that some evangelical scholars contend that the Genesis creation accounts hold a deeper and more powerful meaning than what is offered in a literal interpretation.
In the first exilic era (time that the Hebrews were in exile), the Hebrew people were exposed to the Egyptian religious beliefs, whereas they were exposed to the Babylonian religion during the second exilic period. The creation accounts and deity hierarchies of both religions shared some commonalities: they were polytheistic, the deities were both good and evil, objects in the universe were deities, and creation was unintentional. Similarities between the first Genesis account and the Babylonian account, known as the Enuma Elish, are stronger than similarities with the Egyptian account. Thus, it is believed the first Genesis account was written during the second exilic era, and the second account was written during the first exilic era.
This does not mean that the Hebrew author(s) borrowed cosmological concepts from the neighboring religions. Instead, the Hebrew creation accounts are recognized as theological responses to the neighboring cosmologies. Each of the Genesis creation accounts served as a powerful contrast against the polytheistic backdrop of its respective counterpart by defining God as acting alone, distinguishing the objects of the universe as part of His handiwork (e.g. the sun and moon), and by defining creation as intentional and personal. Thus, the role of the Genesis text is theological allegory, not scientific or historical narrative.
Continued in Part II...
Advocates of interpreting Genesis literally view the first creation account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) as a documentary on how God created, and the second creation account (Genesis 2:4-9) is either ignored, or its existence as a separate account is denied since it contains a different chronology. Opponents to the literalist view argue that defining the literary genre of the first account as historical narrative is a misunderstanding of the role of the text.
Discussion of views other than those dependent upon a literal interpretation prompts an immediate concern—fear that a non-literal interpretation invalidates the Genesis story. But there is one interpretation that finds a higher value in the story. During the nearly half-century of debate, the spotlight has focused almost solely on the literal interpretation of the first account, thus leaving the other interpretation virtually unknown. Many do not realize that some evangelical scholars contend that the Genesis creation accounts hold a deeper and more powerful meaning than what is offered in a literal interpretation.
In the first exilic era (time that the Hebrews were in exile), the Hebrew people were exposed to the Egyptian religious beliefs, whereas they were exposed to the Babylonian religion during the second exilic period. The creation accounts and deity hierarchies of both religions shared some commonalities: they were polytheistic, the deities were both good and evil, objects in the universe were deities, and creation was unintentional. Similarities between the first Genesis account and the Babylonian account, known as the Enuma Elish, are stronger than similarities with the Egyptian account. Thus, it is believed the first Genesis account was written during the second exilic era, and the second account was written during the first exilic era.
This does not mean that the Hebrew author(s) borrowed cosmological concepts from the neighboring religions. Instead, the Hebrew creation accounts are recognized as theological responses to the neighboring cosmologies. Each of the Genesis creation accounts served as a powerful contrast against the polytheistic backdrop of its respective counterpart by defining God as acting alone, distinguishing the objects of the universe as part of His handiwork (e.g. the sun and moon), and by defining creation as intentional and personal. Thus, the role of the Genesis text is theological allegory, not scientific or historical narrative.
Continued in Part II...
