This article is based on a talk given by Jon the freelance theologian in June 2010. It is best read in conjunction with the article on evil, posted on freelance theology in February 2010.

The talk began with a rough “timeline” of what is often taught in churches about satan. An adapted version is shown here: (more…)

Question 156, from Ed, United Kingdom

I have a question about comparing the Babylonian ancient writings with the Bible. My theology lecturers suggest much of the beginning of Genesis is based upon these Babylonian writings. Does that undermine the creation story as a authority and does it have to suggest that Genesis cannot be interpreted literally?

There are definite similarities between some (not all) of the Babylonian creation stories found by archaeologists and the stories found in the first chapters of Genesis. However, there are also significant differences, and many of the ‘similarities’ claimed are theoretical at best. (more…)

Question 151, from George P, USA
Genesis chapter 4, verses 1-2 records the birth of Cain and Abel. I notice there is only one conception but two births. Were they twins?

There is no real tradition in either Judaism or Christianity that Cain and Abel were twins. However, a direct translation of the original Hebrew text would read as follows:

“And the man knew Eve his wife. And she conceived and bore Cain, and said, “I have gotten a man of Yahweh.” And she continued [yacaph] to bear his brother Abel.”

(more…)

Question 124, from SF

The average life-span of people written about in the Old Testament was hundreds of years, yet after the flood life spans dramatically declined. I have heard somewhere that the cause of this is related to a change in the earth’s atmosphere after the flood. Where might I go to find out more on this theory?

The only time average human life-spans are recorded as notably longer is before the story of the great flood. Although there was a much lower life-expectancy in Old Testament times, for the vast majority of the Old Testament, a life-span of 70 years was considered a good age (see, for example Psalm 90, verse 10).

The theory mentioned in the question is often found in creationist literature produced by people who seek to ‘prove’ (more…)

Question 121, from Luci, Canada

Our current system of dates was devised by Dionysus Exiguus in about 525 AD. I know that prior to adopting this ‘modern’ system many western cultures measured time by the reigns of their leaders. Today (as it was in the book of Genesis) days are measured by periods of light and darkness. What I wonder is who decided what an hour was, and who decided a day had 24 hours and the year was 365 days? Is it possible that the people who are marked as being centuries old in Biblical times actually had the same life spans that we do now but the method of measurement was different?

There are basically three different explanations for the long lifespans recorded in Genesis, before the account of Noah and the Flood. The first, adhered to by those who would argue that Genesis is literally true is that they did live those lengths of time. Various theories relating to the state of the world before the Flood are put forward to explain this.

The second explanation is that there has been some kind of counting error. This might be because of confusion over dating, due to time being measured in a variety of ways, or it could be because Hebrew ‘numbers’ are easy to misread and misinterpret (see this previous article). The third explanation is that the long lifespans were invented (more…)

Question 120, from LLG, USA

I have a question about the tree of knowledge? Was the tree an apple tree or a fig tree? I was told that Adam and Eve did not eat from an apple tree because an apple tree can not grow in the Middle East due to the climate, but that they ate from a fig tree instead. Also I was told that Adam and Eve came from Africa. Is any of this factual from a scientific viewpoint?

The account of the ‘Fall’ in Genesis chapter 3 where Adam and Eve disobey God by eating from ‘the tree of knowledge of good and evil’ is probably best understood as being metaphorical. The type of tree (or fruit) isn’t referred to in the text.

The idea that Adam and Eve ate an apple has certainly taken hold in popular Western thought. Possibly this can be traced to (more…)

Question 105 – from DW, USA

God says in the Bible “It’s not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis chapter 2, verse18).
I have three questions about this passage
a) “It’s not good” Was God capable of creating a situation that was not good?
b) “Man to be alone” I thought God walked in the garden with him, can you be alone while in the presence of God?
c) “A helper suitable for him” What did Adam need help with? Tending the garden? Or naming the animals? He wasn’t under a time constraint was he? As far as companionship, remember we were created for Jesus’ good pleasure, and purpose, there is no marriage in heaven or eternity, if there is something more that we need than Jesus, there is a problem.

This is actually a refined version of a question DW asked previously, and some points are worth reiterating. It would seem that the creation story found in the first few chapters of Genesis is a merging of two accounts. The first describes, in general terms, the creation process that brought the world into being in seven days. There is then an abrupt shift in emphasis in Genesis chapter 2, verse 4, which introduces “the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” This second version deals with the specific creation of named human beings, Adam and Eve, their subsequent Fall and loss of a Golden Age.

Some people go to great lengths to prove the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account. There has been some speculation recently whether the story of Eden is an ancient folk memory concerning the fall of civilisations in ancient Africa and the Near East due to sudden climate change approximately six thousand years ago, which coincides roughly with the Biblical chronology (see ‘Why Deserts will Inherit the Earth’, The Independent, 5 June 2006). Or it may be a myth, in the technical sense of the word, i.e. a true story that has been explained supernaturally because the writers lacked the scientific language necessary to objectively describe it.

Whatever the case, these early chapters of Genesis do present some seeming contradictions. Taking the accounts at face value, it is probably best to approach these three questions individually.

a) If two different stories were merged into one (as seems to be the case from textual evidence) it would explain why God terms everything as “good” in Genesis chapter 1, verse 31, but then later on there can be an aspect of this ‘completely good’ creation, which is ‘not good’. Additionally, from later chapters, it seems that God has allowed creatures an element of independent free will, meaning that even if God’s initial creation was perfectly good, it contained within it the possibility of falling away from that initial state and become less than perfect.

Adam’s loneliness is the only thing described as ‘not good’ before the account of the Fall. One explanation for this is that: “Humanity is created as a social being, and is meant to exist in relation with others.” [Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 1994, p.235]. Being made in the image of the God (Trinity) naturally presupposes this. It could be assumed that Adam would want to relate to others like him, in the same way that God, within the Godhead, exists in interpersonal relationship. Adam need not have wanted this, but once he did, this unmet need would have made the situation ‘not good’.

Alternatively, it may just be the phrasing. There is an old joke that God made Adam first and then got started on an upgrade – Eve. In a sense this may have a grain of truth in it. God’s ongoing interaction with the world is shown by the attempt to improve creation that is already good, as God seeks to bring about the best world possible. While this image of God giving creation a ‘tweak’ is over-anthropomorphic, the creation of both Adam and Eve as individuals has already occurred after God’s ‘sabbath rest’ from creation (chapter 2, verse 2), implying that creation did continue after the six days of Genesis chapter 1.

b) In the account, God put Adam into Eden, but did not necessarily live there with him. In chapter 3, verse 8 (after Adam and Eve disobeyed God by taking the forbidden fruit), God is said to be ‘walking in the garden in the cool of the day’. The use of a specific time of day implies that God was not always walking in the garden with Adam. The story itself implies God is absent when the serpent has its fateful conversation with Eve in chapter 3, verses 1-6.

This is an interesting phrase though, with God depicted almost like a country landowner, inspecting his estate in the early evening when strolling around it is cool and enjoyable experience. The anthropomorphism of God at this point is another reason why many people regard this story as an allegory and not literal truth.

c) If these creation accounts are read as allegory, then they seek to explain, in non-scientific terms, why humanity takes the form of two genders. ‘Helper’ is a very interesting choice of word here, and possibly reflects later religious thought being ‘read back’ into the account of origins. Most primitive religions of the Middle East revolved around fertility practices and reverence of the ‘life-bearing mother’. As Israelite religion sought to establish worship of the ‘male’ Yahweh, it would be natural to promote this creation account where the female is subordinate to the male, a ‘weaker’ gender introduced as a ‘helper’ to the ‘stronger’.

The idea that human beings exist solely for God’s pleasure has entered into popular theology in many churches. This idea has been particularly highlighted by the book The Purpose Driven Life, written by American pastor Rick Warren, where it is explicitly spelled out as the first of five purposes for every human being (op. cit., published by Zondervan 2002, pp 63ff). There is a good Biblical basis to this point of view, but it does not necessarily mean that God is selfish about creation.

To put it another way, being made for God’s pleasure does not limit the actions and activities of human beings, as long as those activities bring pleasure to God. Again the phrase ‘created in the image of God’ crops up. Human beings, as image-bearing creatures are designed to be relational and as such need other creatures that they can relate to, so that they do not feel ‘alone’.

God could have created every human being the same way Genesis records him creating Adam. Asking why God introduced sex into the equation by creating a new gender leads to pure speculation. Perhaps it was to introduce a random ‘chance’ element into things. Maybe it was a necessary part of allowing free will. It is impossible to know, but Adam’s relational need for a helper does not contradict the idea that all human beings exist because of God’s creative actions and for God’s pleasure.

Thanks for your questions DW.

Question from VP, USA

In Genesis chapter 11, verse 6, the Lord says that nothing the people propose to do will be impossible. They were building a tower to reach the heavens. I find it strange that he prevented them from building a tower because it would reach the heavens, yet today we fly in space. Did God move? What is your opinion of this?

One important aspect of the book of Genesis, which echoes most ancient stories, is that there is a nostalgic sense of a ‘golden age’ that has been lost. The story about the Tower of Babel in Genesis chapter 11, indicates two things about early humanity’s ‘golden age’. Firstly, that human beings were powerful enough to ‘worry God’, and secondly that originally humans all spoke the same language. These are common motifs in ancestral myths that hark back to a better time.

The specific problem with the Tower of Babel was not so much that it would reach into the heavens, but by reaching into the heavens, human beings were seeking to set themselves up on a par with God. This is an etymological myth, which seeks to explain a number of things – notably why people are scattered across the world, particularly if they all descend from common ancestors found earlier in Genesis, and why people in different places speak different languages, again hard to reconcile with the idea of a common ancestor.

There is undoubtedly a possibility that the original author of Genesis could have borrowed from Babylonian myth here. The ‘plain of Shinar’ (verse 2) is in Mesopotamia. Babel and Babylon are perhaps interchangeable. As the author tried to fit these myths, drawn from a number of traditions, together into a coherent story, the Tower of Babel naturally provides a reason for both the spread of humanity and the many languages. If it’s not enough that humanity has lost its special Eden-relationship with God, now besides mortality, the day-to-day power of human beings is also reduced and the human race is divided into many scattered peoples and a ‘confusion’ of languages.

In conclusion, it was not the height of the Tower of Babel that was a problem; it was the purpose. Contemporary space exploration has not generally been conducted in the same sense of trying to establish humans as gods. Although it is interesting that space exploration has deepened the convictions of those who have travelled beyond the atmosphere. Many astronauts, looking towards Earth have attested to a sense that such a fragile and beautiful thing must be the work of God. One cosmonaut, however, famously remarked that, as he looked out to the stars, he could not see God anywhere.

Thanks for your question, VP.

Question from AC, Brazil

As a believer I have some difficulty understanding how people say the earth is about 10,000 years old but we see evidence that it’s millions of years old. When did God create the earth and everything that is here, including mankind? Was it millions of years ago or it was just some thousand years ago? And, what to say about Latin American natives? Who were they descended from?

The origins of Earth and humanity provide fertile ground for questions here on freelance theology and this kind of question has been answered before. A good starting point is to realize that the Biblical account of creation found in Genesis is not to be read as a scientific document. However, the existence of scientific evidence that appears to contradict the basic story of Genesis, results in three main ways in which Christians respond.

The first is to firmly separate the arenas of science and faith. Put simply, this is a denial of the validity of human observation and experience if it contradicts truths that are taken ‘on faith’. Because the Biblical record must be true, the scientific evidence to the contrary is ignored. Very few Christians would actively advocate such a view, but it does still linger on in dogmatic circles, whether Roman Catholic, or protestant fundamentalist.

The second option is to try and interpret Genesis as a scientific document and fit the ‘scientific evidence’ to the Genesis account. ‘Creation science’, as it’s often termed, argues for the rapid laying down of rocks during the great flood of Noah’s time, which also provides a handy ‘extinction event’ as seen in the fossil record and possibly explains the anomaly of carbon-14 dating. As for the native Latin Americans, the reference in Genesis chapter 10, verse 25 to the earth being “divided” during Peleg’s lifetime (after the flood) is interpreted to mean the separation of the continents. This means that, like everybody else, the Latin Americans are descended from Noah.

Notwithstanding recent legal attempts to have creationism taught as a legitimate scientific alternative in North American schools, it should be noted that this interpretation of the scientific evidence is hotly disputed and dismissed by many scientists. While wanting to present ‘scientific’ proof for creation, creation scientists do of course operate in an unscientific manner, wanting to fit the evidence to the theory, not the other way around. In many ways, this is very similar to the first option, where something is believed by ‘faith’ and then the believer seeks to prove its truthfulness.

A third alternative is to accept that Genesis is a ‘myth’, in the technical sense of the word. ‘Myth’ does not mean ‘fairy tale’; a myth is an attempt to explain the existence of something or a set of circumstances in non-scientific terms. The reason behind the myth becomes the important thing, not the actual mechanics of the narrative. In this case, it is clear that the Genesis author wants to relate God’s involvement with the world from the beginning, God’s involvement with human beings, and the rejection of God by those self-same humans. It is perfectly reasonable to accept these mythologised truths, regardless of the scientific evidence.

Thanks for your question, AC – the first one on freelance theology from Brazil!