Expert: Messianic Rabbi Yochanan Levine - 2/5/2008

Question
Hi,
There appear to be two creation stories in the first couple of chapters of the Bible. How then can we take creation literally? What does it mean to be a fundamentalist?
How can we be real Christians if we choose which parts of the Bible we want to believe and which bits we wont (e.g. teachings about slavery and women) - as this surely makes it a religion of the self.
Since the Bible is the way through which we know Jesus, surely it needs to be more than just a personal interpretation which leads us to Him.

Thanks for your help in this matter; I am a medical student in England.

Answer
Hi Christian,
This is an area of much controversy and intriguing debate and speculation among Christians (as well as Jews).

What follows may be a bit more long-winded than you had hoped for, if so I apologize. I have been thinking about writing on this topic for quite a while and took your question as my inspiration to do so now.

Most people seem to be unaware that there are two different creation accounts taught in early Genesis, but of course there are. So how are we to understand this?

The most held-to view is that the first account gives an overview of a single creation and then the second adds more details parenthetically. I can not accept this view.

In my opinion a key to unlocking this mystery is found at Gen 2:4: "These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created, in the day that HaShem G-d made earth and heaven." (JPS)

Note that these accounts record "the generations" plural of the heaven ("heavens" in the KJV) and the earth.

There were "generations" of the heaven and the earth.

When studying the Bible (or any other ancient work) we need to consider the context in which it was written and the level of understanding and preexisting beliefs of the intended recipients. The people living around 1450-1410 BCE did not have telescopes and so on and their lack of scientific knowledge needs to be considered in order to correctly understand the texts granted them. Hence we read at Gen 1:16-18, "And G-d made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. And G-d set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and G-d saw that it was good" (JPS).

We today understand that the moon is not a light. The light that appears to come from it is but the sun's reflection. Despite this, it looks like a "lesser light" and that is how the people understood it.

Master Y'shua (Lord Jesus) gave us insight here when he said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12).

As was common with most works of antiquity the Bible does not present itself as a scientific thesis but as a reflection of the understandings of the people dealt with and their relationships to the God of their understanding.

Had God presented a detailed account of exactly how He created the heavens and the earth and their generations we today still would not be able to comprehend it. God utterly transcends human consciousness.

Thankfully God is all merciful and presents information in ways we can grasp, often with effort.

Our modern day scientific just-the-facts global paradigm is a relatively new phenomenon. The ancients were interested in the powers behind the manifest, not so much the manifest itself. This difference in perspective can be seen in the parting of the Red Sea. When I was young and heard this account my only thought was, "Oh my God is powerful!" Today the Discovery Channel (a US Secular Humanist TV channel, not sure if its in the UK or not) runs documentaries attempting to explain that it was not "the Red Sea," that "proto-Moses" parted by "God's power," which is quite large and would indeed be miraculous, but "the Reed Sea" which is quite small and has unusual cross currents that sometimes effect the water in odd ways.

The ancients wanted to see God's Hand at work, today most people want to explain it away (even as the prophets foretold). This is evidence of a major paradigm shift that has occurred over the past hundred years or so.

The point is, if we study the Bible from a modern-day mindset we will miss and misconstrue much of what it is saying. As the teacher said, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).

Faith is essential. The Holy One can not be placed in a test tube.

My understanding then is that the early Hebrews to whom Moses wrote were well acquainted with the earlier Sumarian legions and that many of his teachings are piggybacked onto theirs. This in no way nullifies them. Our beliefs are also piggybacked onto earlier teachings, be they those of the scriptures or of Einstein and Darwin. There is nothing new under the sun (Ecl. 1:9).

I also see however, from Gen.2:4 cited above (and elsewhere) that Moses understood that the most recent "creation" of the earth he knew was not the first creation to occur. In the first instance (Gen 1:1-2:3) he speaks of the way back time when God first created the heavens and the earth and placed unnamed humans into it. As he spoke of Adam and Eve (by name) in the second creation account, the progenitors of the humans he knew, so too Moses references the unnamed first humans and the genesis of their world. Tradition speaks of the first Adam (lit. "human") and his wife Lilith but that is a topic for another study.

In the second creation account (Gen 2:4-) Moses tells about the world he knows. The destruction or purification that occurred prior to the second creation account is referenced in the works of other traditions as, for instance, the releasing of the "brahmastra weapons" that were like massively more potent nuclear weapons than we thus far have developed and that were released following the War of Kuruksetra. Again, this would be a topic for another discussion. The point is, this view has at least as solid support as the single creation interpretation.

While we do not know how many "beginnings" there have may been, we do get an insight from the following:

II Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

A careful reading of such verses and other sources leads me to conclude that due to God's infinite mercy the earth (the realm of mortal man) is created, humanity develops, spiritually and technologically evolves and devolves and eventually it becomes necessary, due to God's love and justice, to intervene and purify the planet by various means.

We are, in my opinion, fast approaching such a purification.

Matt. 24:And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake [ie the Jews] those days shall be shortened.

To me then, "time" is cyclical.

I believe that Adam and Eve, whether regarded as literal people or as metaphors for the survivors of such a time of purification (I believe they were literal survivors, although not the only survivors, whose descendants came through Noah's son Shem, hence they are called Semites: ie the Jews and other Semitic peoples) passed their memories down orally through their generations. Moses received these oral traditions from various sources and was inspired by HaShem to record them in the Holy Torah (the Five Books of Moses, ie Genesis through Deuteronomy).

As for the word "Fundamentalism."

I am not a Fundamentalist.

This is a modern term that was coined in opposition to the advancement of Secular Humanism in biblical criticism and society. There is now the tendency to interpret the Bible in light of modern beliefs and mores (as I referenced in the case of the Red Sea parting above). For instance, the Torah states, "In the beginning God (elohiym) created..." For the modern Secular Humanist who accepts the tenants of Darwinism this can be interpreted to mean that God (or the "universe") employed the processes of physical evolution and that through this process "God" "created."

Biblical Fundamentalists reject this sort of interpretation, believing it gradually weakens faith in God's existence and makes God irrelevant (or even a mere superstition). After so many years of Secular Humanist re-education it is difficult to argue their point.

When Fundamentalists see a verse that makes sense literally (ie that agrees with their overall theological beliefs) they accept it as "literal biblical truth" and look no further. Such Christians often refer to themselves as "Bible believing Christians" and avoid overt denominational ties. They generally are not open to what I and others would consider the "deeper truths" of the Bible.

For instance:

Gen. 3:9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (KJV)

Most Fundamentalists read this and think, "OK, they were naked. It is sinful to let others see one naked and so they hid." End of story.

Even God? Who sees everything?

There is another deeper understanding here.

Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Because they were physically naked?

We continue:

22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

Their "nakedness" had nothing to do with clothing. It appears that they were previously spiritual beings with bodies similar to those revealed to certain disciples by Master Y'shua at Matthew 17:

Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light...

In order for them to grow in knowledge they were "coated" in human flesh and made subject to certain material laws and limitations. This anciently held interpretation is much more logical than the idea they felt shame for their nakedness, which is far from universal, as this interpretation would imply. Indeed the more sinful people are the more  modest they should be according to this interpretation, but the opposite is generally the case. This understanding also adds a depth to human existence not found in the Fundamentalist Doctrine of Original Sin (established by Saint Augustine).

Hope this helps,
Write back anytime,
~John of AllFaith