1) That Adam and Eve were the first humans
It is almost a Christian cliché that Adam and Eve were the first humans. Whenever we tell the story of Creation, we tell it the way we were told it as children, which includes the notion that Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day of Creation; that they therefore were the first humans.
However, the story of Creation itself does not actually mention Adam and Eve. Instead, on the sixth day humans - both men and women - were created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), whereas Adam and Eve are not mentioned at all until Genesis 2. How, then, could Adam and Eve be the first humans if, according to the story of Creation, humans are created before Adam and Eve?
Secondly, we can find evidence that Adam and Eve were not the first humans by looking at the story of Cain and Abel. After Cain has killed his brother, he is exiled. Cain protests against this punishment, claiming that if he were to be exiled, anyone who met him would kill him (Genesis 4:14). If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then after Cain kills Abel there would only by three people on the earth, including himself. How, then, can there be anyone to kill Cain if the only people in existence to kill him are his parents, from whom he is being exiled?
However, although they were not the first humans, we can say that Adam and Eve are the mother and father of all humanity. They are direct descendants of Noah, whose family were the sole survivors of The Flood.
2) That woman was created as man's 'helper'
It is also written within the first few chapters of Genesis that Eve was created as Adam's helper, for Adam was lonely and needed such assistance (Genesis 2:18). This has been the basis for many claims that the Bible says that women are merely the 'helpers' or 'assistants' of men.
However, if linked to my previous point, this verse does not show the alleged inferiority of women. For, if Adam and Eve were not the first humans, then how could all of women have been created as man's 'helpers'? The most accurate thing we can make of this verse is that Eve was created as Adam's helper, not that entire womankind was created as the 'helper' of all of mankind.
On the contrary - as we have also seen in the last point that I made - both men and women were created at the same time on the sixth day, both in God's image; both equal.
3) That the story of Creation goes against the scientific explanation of the world
My final point is probably my most controversial. Over the years, there have been many debates over whether the scientific explanation of the world means that we have no need for the Creation story. However, this would imply that the scientific explanation of the world and the Creation story are in conflict with each other; that, much like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort (warning: spoilers coming up), "one cannot live while the other survives". This does not have to be the case.
Firstly, you can take the order of the Creation story and compare it to the scientific explanation. Firstly, there was light, night and day. Secondly, there was the sky. Thirdly, there was the earth. Fourthly, water and plants. Fifthly, the moon and the influence of the sun. Sixthly, animals. And lastly, humans. In only one way does the order of the Creation story not mirror the scientific explanation of the world; albeit if the former does not use as sophisticated and scientific language as the latter.
One argument against the Creation story is that science as itself can disprove it; that if there is a scientific explanation, we have no need for the Divine Creation. Science, as an entity in itself, disproves the existence of God. However, could not science have been created by God? Science is the delicate string that holds our universe together; a set of rules that binds and controls all matter in the known cosmos. Therefore, it is very complicated. Therefore, could we not argue that it came into existence using the Design Theory?
Humans are an inquisitive race; it is what many people say separates us from animals, that we have the ability to dream and wonder and to question the world around us. This world is one that God created for us; He meant for us to inherit it, as a gift. Would you give someone a gift that they had no hope of understanding? Without science, our intelligence would not be advanced enough for us to understand how Creation works, for if it was, we would all be God. Therefore, I believe that science was created by God as a way of helping us to understand the world around us and to feed our infinite thirst for knowledge.
Another argument against Creation is the seven days aspect of the story. The Bible claims that the world - indeed, the entire universe - was created in seven days. Science claims that it took more like 13.7 billion years. That's a big difference in time. However, how literally can we take the timing written of in the Bible? The civilisation that wrote Genesis were more scientifically naive than us. A concept like 13.7 billion years even boggles us, let alone a race who has not had our centuries of scientific innovation to make a number like that more accessible. 7 days is accessible to everyone.
Furthermore, how can we say with any real certainty that God lives inside of time? Even the scientific explanation of the world claims that time started at the Big Bang - and God existed before the Big Bang; therefore for something to exist before time, that thing - or Person - must exist outside of time. 7 days to God could have been billions of years for those living inside of time.
Finally, the theory of evolution. How do dinosaurs fit in with the Creation story? To this, I argue a case similar to my last point. The story of Creation does not mention explicitly the animals that were created. Dinosaurs could have emerged in the 'day' that animals were created, but - as I have already mentioned - if that 'day' was actually millions of years, then there is no difficulty fitting in the dinosaurs into the story of Creation.
It is also written within the first few chapters of Genesis that Eve was created as Adam's helper, for Adam was lonely and needed such assistance (Genesis 2:18). This has been the basis for many claims that the Bible says that women are merely the 'helpers' or 'assistants' of men.
However, if linked to my previous point, this verse does not show the alleged inferiority of women. For, if Adam and Eve were not the first humans, then how could all of women have been created as man's 'helpers'? The most accurate thing we can make of this verse is that Eve was created as Adam's helper, not that entire womankind was created as the 'helper' of all of mankind.
On the contrary - as we have also seen in the last point that I made - both men and women were created at the same time on the sixth day, both in God's image; both equal.
3) That the story of Creation goes against the scientific explanation of the world
My final point is probably my most controversial. Over the years, there have been many debates over whether the scientific explanation of the world means that we have no need for the Creation story. However, this would imply that the scientific explanation of the world and the Creation story are in conflict with each other; that, much like Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort (warning: spoilers coming up), "one cannot live while the other survives". This does not have to be the case.
Firstly, you can take the order of the Creation story and compare it to the scientific explanation. Firstly, there was light, night and day. Secondly, there was the sky. Thirdly, there was the earth. Fourthly, water and plants. Fifthly, the moon and the influence of the sun. Sixthly, animals. And lastly, humans. In only one way does the order of the Creation story not mirror the scientific explanation of the world; albeit if the former does not use as sophisticated and scientific language as the latter.
One argument against the Creation story is that science as itself can disprove it; that if there is a scientific explanation, we have no need for the Divine Creation. Science, as an entity in itself, disproves the existence of God. However, could not science have been created by God? Science is the delicate string that holds our universe together; a set of rules that binds and controls all matter in the known cosmos. Therefore, it is very complicated. Therefore, could we not argue that it came into existence using the Design Theory?
Humans are an inquisitive race; it is what many people say separates us from animals, that we have the ability to dream and wonder and to question the world around us. This world is one that God created for us; He meant for us to inherit it, as a gift. Would you give someone a gift that they had no hope of understanding? Without science, our intelligence would not be advanced enough for us to understand how Creation works, for if it was, we would all be God. Therefore, I believe that science was created by God as a way of helping us to understand the world around us and to feed our infinite thirst for knowledge.
Another argument against Creation is the seven days aspect of the story. The Bible claims that the world - indeed, the entire universe - was created in seven days. Science claims that it took more like 13.7 billion years. That's a big difference in time. However, how literally can we take the timing written of in the Bible? The civilisation that wrote Genesis were more scientifically naive than us. A concept like 13.7 billion years even boggles us, let alone a race who has not had our centuries of scientific innovation to make a number like that more accessible. 7 days is accessible to everyone.
Furthermore, how can we say with any real certainty that God lives inside of time? Even the scientific explanation of the world claims that time started at the Big Bang - and God existed before the Big Bang; therefore for something to exist before time, that thing - or Person - must exist outside of time. 7 days to God could have been billions of years for those living inside of time.
Finally, the theory of evolution. How do dinosaurs fit in with the Creation story? To this, I argue a case similar to my last point. The story of Creation does not mention explicitly the animals that were created. Dinosaurs could have emerged in the 'day' that animals were created, but - as I have already mentioned - if that 'day' was actually millions of years, then there is no difficulty fitting in the dinosaurs into the story of Creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment