Analysis of the Biblical Account of Creation

Last Wednesday we began this series of reflections on the reply Christ gave to his questioners on the subject of the unity and indissolubility of marriage. As we recall, the Pharisees who questioned him appealed to the Mosaic Law. However, Christ went back to the "beginning," quoting the words of Genesis.

The "beginning" in this case concerns what one of the first pages of Genesis treats. If we wish to analyze this reality, we must undoubtedly direct our attention first of all to the text. The words which Christ spoke in his talk with the Pharisees, found in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, constitute a passage which in its turn is set in a well-defined context, without reference to which they can neither be understood nor correctly interpreted.

This context is provided by the words, "Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female...?" (Mt 19:4). It referred to the so-called first account of the creation of man inserted in the seven day cycle of the creation of the world (cf. Gn 1:1-2, 4). However, the context nearest to the other words of Christ, taken from Genesis 2:24, is the so-called second account of the creation of man (Gn 2:5-25). But indirectly it is the entire third chapter of Genesis.

The second account of the creation of man forms a conceptual and stylistic unity with the description of original innocence, man's happiness, and also his first fall. Granted the specific content of Christ's words taken from Genesis 2:24, one could also include in the context at least the first phrase of the fourth chapter of Genesis, which treats of the conception and birth of man from earthly parents. That is what we intend to do in the present analysis.

From the point of view of biblical criticism, it is necessary to mention immediately that the first account of man's creation is chronologically later than the second, whose origin is much more remote. This more ancient text is defined as "Yahwist" because the term "Yahweh" is used to name God. It is difficult not to be struck by the fact that the image of God presented there has quite considerable anthropomorphic traits. Among others, we read that "...the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life" (Gn 2:7).

In comparison with this description, the first account, that is, the one held to be chronologically later, is much more mature both as regards the image of God, and as regards the formulation of the essential truths about man. This account derives from the priestly and "Elohist" tradition, from "Elohim," the term used in that account for God.

In this narration man's creation as male and female - to which Jesus referred in his reply according to Matthew 19 - is inserted into the seven day cycle of the creation of the world. A cosmological character could especially be attributed to it. Man is created on earth together with the visible world. But at the same time the Creator orders him to subdue and have dominion over the earth (cf. Gn 1:28); therefore he is placed over the world. Even though man is strictly bound to the visible world, the biblical narrative does not speak of his likeness to the rest of creatures, but only to God. "God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him..." (Gn 1:27). In the seven day cycle of creation a precise graduated procedure is evident. However, man is not created according to a natural succession. The Creator seems to halt before calling him into existence, as if he were pondering within himself to make a decision: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." (Gn 1:26).

The level of that first account of man's creation, even though chronologically later, is especially of a theological character. An indication of that is especially the definition of man on the basis of his relationship with God. "In the image of God he created him." At the same time it affirms the absolute impossibility of reducing man to the world. Already in the light of the first phrases of the Bible, man cannot be either understood or explained completely in terms of categories taken from the "world," that is, from the visible complex of bodies. Notwithstanding this, man also is corporeal. Genesis 1:27 observes that this essential truth about man referred both to the male and the female: "God created man in his image...male and female he created them." It must be recognized that the first account is concise, and free from any trace whatsoever of subjectivism. It contains only the objective facts and defines the objective reality, both when it speaks of man's creation, male and female, in the image of God, and when it adds a little later the words of the first blessing: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth; subdue it and have dominion over it" (Gn 1:28).

The first account of man's creation, which, as we observed, is of a theological nature, conceals within itself a powerful metaphysical content. Let it not be forgotten that this text of Genesis has become the source of the most profound inspirations for thinkers who have sought to understand "being" and "existence." (Perhaps only the third chapter of Exodus can bear comparison with this text.) Notwithstanding certain detailed and plastic expressions of the passage, man is defined there, first of all, in the dimensions of being and of existence ("esse"). He is defined in a way that is more metaphysical than physical.

To this mystery of his creation, ("In the image of God he created him"), corresponds the perspective of procreation, ("Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth"), of that becoming in the world and in time, of that fieri which is necessarily bound up with the metaphysical situation of creation: of contingent being (contingens). Precisely in this metaphysical context of the description of Genesis 1, it is necessary to understand the entity of the good, namely, the aspect of value. Indeed, this aspect appears in the cycle of nearly all the days of creation and reaches its culmination after the creation of man: "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gn 1:31). For this reason it can be said with certainty that the first chapter of Genesis has established an unassailable point of reference and a solid basis for a metaphysic and also for an anthropology and an ethic, according to which ens et bonum convertuntur (being and the good are convertible). Undoubtedly, all this also has a significance for theology, and especially for the theology of the body.

At this point let us interrupt our considerations. In a week's time we shall deal with the second account of creation. According to biblical scholars, it is chronologically more ancient. The expression "theology of the body" just now used deserves a more exact explanation, but we shall leave that for another occasion. First, we must seek to examine more closely that passage of Genesis which Christ had recourse to.

By John Paul II

The Second Account of Creation:
The Subjective Definition of Man

With reference to Christ's words on the subject of marriage, in which he appealed to the "beginning," we directed our attention last week to the first account of man's creation in the first chapter of Genesis. Today we shall pass to the second account, which is frequently described as the "Yahwist," since it uses the name "Yahweh" for God.

The second account of man's creation (linked to the presentation both of original innocence and happiness and of the first fall) has by its nature a different character. While not wishing to anticipate the particulars of this narrative - because it will be better for us to recall them in later analyses - we should note that the entire text, in formulating the truth about man, amazes us with its typical profundity, different from that of the first chapter of Genesis.

This profundity has a especially subjective nature and is therefore, in a certain sense, psychological. The second chapter of Genesis constitutes, in a certain manner, the most ancient description and record of man's self-knowledge. Together with the third chapter it is the first testimony of human conscience. A reflection in depth on this text - through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character - provides us in nucleo with nearly all the elements of the analysis of man, to which modern, and especially contemporary philosophical anthropology is sensitive. It could be said that Genesis 2 presents the creation of man especially in its subjective aspect. Comparing both accounts, we conclude that this subjectivity corresponds to the objective reality of man created "in the image of God." This fact also is - in another way - important for the theology of the body, as we shall see in subsequent analyses.

It is significant that in his reply to the Pharisees, in which he appealed to the "beginning," Christ indicated first of all the creation of man by referring to Genesis 1:27: "The Creator from the beginning created them male and female." Only afterward did he quote the text of Genesis 2:24. The words which directly describe the unity and indissolubility of marriage are found in the immediate context of the second account of creation. Its characteristic feature is the separate creation of woman (cf. Gn 2:18-23), while the account of the creation of the first man is found in Genesis 2:5-7.

The Bible calls the first human being "man" ('adam), but from the moment of the creation of the first woman, it begins to call him "man" (ish), in relation to ishshah ("woman," because she was taken from the man - ish). It is also significant that in referring to Genesis 2:24, Christ not only linked the "beginning" with the mystery of creation, but also led us, one might say, to the limit of man's primitive innocence and of original sin. Genesis places the second description of man's creation precisely in this context. There we read first of all: "And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man; then the man said: ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man"' (Gn 2:22-23). "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gn 2:24). "And the man and his wife were both naked, and they were not ashamed" (Gn 2:25).

Immediately after these verses, chapter 3 begins with its account of the first fall of the man and the woman, linked with the mysterious tree already called the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" (Gn 2:17). Thus an entirely new situation emerges, essentially different from the preceding. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the line of demarcation between the two original situations which Genesis speaks of.

The first situation was that of original innocence, in which man (male and female) was, as it were, outside the sphere of the knowledge of good and evil, until the moment when he transgressed the Creator's prohibition and ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The second situation, however, was that in which man, after having disobeyed the Creator's command at the prompting of the evil spirit, symbolized by the serpent, found himself, in a certain way, within the sphere of the knowledge of good and evil. This second situation determined the state of human sinfulness, in contrast to the state of primitive innocence.

Even though the "Yahwist" text is very concise, it suffices with clarity to differentiate and to set against each other those two original situations. We speak here of situations, having before our eyes the account which is a description of events. Nonetheless, by means of this description and all its particulars, the essential difference emerges between the state of man's sinfulness and that of his original innocence.

Systematic theology will discern in these two antithetical situations two different states of human nature: the state of integral nature and the state of fallen nature. All this emerges from that "Yahwist" text of Genesis 2-3, which contains in itself the most ancient word of revelation. Evidently it has a fundamental significance for the theology of man and for the theology of the body.

When Christ, referring to the "beginning," directed his questioners to the words written in Genesis 2:24, he ordered them, in a certain sense, to go beyond the boundary which, in the Yahwist text of Genesis, runs between the first and second situation of man. He did not approve what Moses had permitted "for their hardness of heart." He appealed to the words of the first divine regulation, which in this text is expressly linked to man's state of original innocence. This means that this regulation has not lost its force, even though man has lost his primitive innocence.

Christ's reply is decisive and unequivocal. Therefore, we must draw from it the normative conclusions which have an essential significance not only for ethics, but especially for the theology of man and for the theology of the body. As a particular element of theological anthropology, it is constituted on the basis of the Word of God which is revealed. During the next meeting we shall seek to draw these conclusions.

Again by John Paul II

Two thoughts occur:

1) Where in all of that is what I said refuted?

2) Why should I care if the Pope refuted anything, I'm not Catholic.

Honestly, what little I read, it seems that the Pope is agreeing with me, not you.

you should read more.
and you are right you should not care at all.
however, most of the protestant heads nowadays tend to care.

I don't have time, if you could point me to the paragraph in question, I would appreciate it.

This profundity has a especially subjective nature and is therefore, in a certain sense, psychological. The second chapter of Genesis constitutes, in a certain manner, the most ancient description and record of man's self-knowledge. Together with the third chapter it is the first testimony of human conscience. A reflection in depth on this text - through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character - provides us in nucleo with nearly all the elements of the analysis of man, to which modern, and especially contemporary philosophical anthropology is sensitive. It could be said that Genesis 2 presents the creation of man especially in its subjective aspect. Comparing both accounts, we conclude that this subjectivity corresponds to the objective reality of man created "in the image of God." This fact also is - in another way - important for the theology of the body, as we shall see in subsequent analyses.

I don't understand how that refutes the existance of Adam and Eve as real people. The events were "subjective" according to the Pope, but for an event to be "subjective" it must be experianced. I feel that what the pope wrote does not in any way put the existance of Adam and Eve into question.

Walker....I see a TYPO in what you wrote above.......

I
think what you MEANT to say here is....


"....I do, if I DIDN'T , I WOULDN'T believe that Adam and Eve are real characters from whom the entire humanity comes from. .."

What you MEANT to say in so many Words is... You DO Believe Adam and Eve are real characters, right Walker?


Also Walker..prophecy is GIVEN and FORETOLD for a future time, not a present time.

Just like Jesus birth was FORETOLD..then it CAME to PASS.

Just like Israel was FORETOLD to become a Nation again..and that too ,CAME TO PASS.

Just a couple of Instances here...

And there IS a real ANTI_CHRIST that the bible speaks of.

Go back and Search the scriptures ... and find it, Walker....

"through the whole archaic form of the narrative, which manifests its primitive mythical character"

So he characterized Genesis 2 as "primitive" and "mythical". He did not say that Adam and Eve were mythical, if that is what you are trying to get at.

The position of the Catholic Church is that Adam and Eve were real people who were created through a special act of creation.

http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05646b.htm

While I disagree with many of their assertions, it cannot be denied that the Catholic Church (and thus Pope John Paul II) believe in Adam and Eve.

But Walker..the Pope STILL is NOT denying Adam and Eve EXISTED For REAL.

The Pope also wrote,

"... This context is provided by the words, "Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female...?" (Mt 19:4). It referred to the so-called first account of the creation of man inserted in the seven day cycle of the creation of the world (cf. Gn 1:1-2, 4). However, the context nearest to the other words of Christ, taken from Genesis 2:24, is the so-called second account of the creation of man (Gn 2:5-25). But indirectly it is the entire third chapter of Genesis...."

ALSO..... I just called the Catholic church myself, and asked them.... do they believe ....and also ....does the Pope believe.... that Adam ansd Eve was REAL or a MYTH!!!

They gave a RESOUNDING YES...that they AND the Poe BELIEVE that Adam and Eve DID exist and Was REAL and NOT a Myth......and also , they believe every single Word of the Bible!!!

Walker......???

What's going on with you today , my friend....

ps.....my whole background from pappa's side, was Catholic .
I am a nondenominationl christian myself , but I still visit the catholic church ...and the baptist and other churches here, too.

In fact, we christians in my area(and a lot of areas now)... meet in each other's churches here on occasion... cause we are realizing , that we are worshipping the same Jesus anyway!!

I think everyone has overlooked the fact that there is no 8th King prophecy

And U.S. has no King

A President is not a KIng

I learned that in grade school

We've moved way past that and are now discussing how the Bible should be interpreted. Literally, figuratively or at face value.

Isnt that in every thread?

Etymology and use of word
There is not a little divergence of opinion among Semitic scholars when they attempt to explain the etymological signification of the Hebrew adam (which in all probability was originally used as a common rather than a proper name), and so far no theory appears to be fully satisfactory. One cause of uncertainty in the matter is the fact that the root adam as signifying "man" or "mankind" is not common to all the Semitic tongues, though of course the name is adopted by them in translations of the Old Testament. As an indigenous term with the above signification, it occurs only in Phoenician and Sabean, and probably also in Assyrian. In Genesis 2:7, the name seems to be connected with the word ha-adamah ("the ground"), in which case the value of the term would be to represent man (ratione materiæ) as earthborn, much the same as in Latin, where the word homo is supposed to be kindred with humus.

from the catholic encyclopedia

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

from:
http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

sorry not worth a response.

I'm honestly exhausted, today I have read more than any other day of my life.
The only thing I can say is that when Galileo proposed the heliocentric conception of the Earth it was consider an outraged because it was against what was written in the Bible, and against everything the theology proposed.
However, time and science comfirmed that his agreement with Copernicus did not contradict scripture, but reaffirmed it.
For now I need to withdraw because my brain is literally fried, and the headches are starting to tormenting me, and I really don't know what is going on with my head.

Walker, I am sorry to hear about the headaches....and frankly, it concerns me greatly..since you say you've been having them for awhile now. :(



Father God in Jesus Name, I bind these headaches off Walker right now !!

I Thank You Lord God, for your healing power...touching and healing Walker right now........ and that these headaches STOP and come back NO MORE.......in Jesus Name I pray...Amen!!!

You need to get that checked out. Go to a hospital and get and MRI, it's probably stress, but it might be something serious.