One of my professors happened to mention in passing during lecture that the reason that the first two chapters of Genesis have an inconsistency in their account of the Creation is because apparently they were written at two different times (I suppose by two different authors?). At any rate, I was unable to fully question him about this, so I just wanted to ask the more learned members of the PB whether they have any inkling as to what he is referring to? I've been so busy working on a paper today that I haven't had the time to even look over Genesis to see what this supposed inconsistency in the first two chapters, so any help here would be much appreciated! Not that it matters all that much, since there is no reason that the Lord could not inspire two separate authors as easily as he could inspire just one.

Also, on another note, please pray for me: I do not think that my faith will be substantially shaken during my interim in the world of academe but, all the same, please pray that my faith shall remain firm and increase -- not falter.

__________________
Christabella Warren
Fourth Presbyterian Church
Bethesda, MD
========================
These evils I deserve, and more . . . . Justly, yet despair not of his final pardon, Whose ear is ever open, and his eye Gracious to re-admit the suppliant. -- John Milton's Samson Agonistes

Christabella,

Not being a more learned member of the PB, I will still venture to share a thought.

Genesis follows the pattern of pericopes where summary statements and detailed accounts are given. The supposed double-writing of the creation account is an assumption read into the text, rather than the text speaking for itself.

Cheers,

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

Peering back into my JEDP days if I recall correctly Higher Critics believe the first account (1:1-2:4a) was written by the Elohist and the second account (2:5ff) was written by the Jahwist. Higher Critics do not believe in Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch but believe 4 different groups writings (Jahwist, Elohist, Priestly writer, and the Deuteronomistic Historian) were "redacted" into what we have now during the exile.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser, M. Div, Licentiate, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Member Fairmount ARP Church
Pittsburgh, PA

Deo Vindice

Christabella, there is no need to attribute inconsistency to Genesis; the only cause for doing so is the prior assumption that it is not Divine and Inspired: for once this has been denied, apparent and superficial contradictions are assumed to be just that. Diversity of fundamental understanding is thus seen within the text, which leads to an effort to enhance those differences (rather than harmonize them), since the text is being read from a supposedly "history of religion" or "sociological" perspective; thus these supposed difference are magnified so as to give a "better understanding" of the divergent patterns of thought among the (uninspired) theological groups which produced the traditions.

If, however, we assert that the text is Divine, then we start with the firm, unshakable a priori knowledge that the text cannot contradict itself; and so we harmonize the two parts of the account. Certain passages may be trickier to do this with than others, but this cannot shake our faith: for our faith in its reliability stems not from our ability to prove it; rather, our ability to persevere and ultimately understand and demonstrate the harmony comes from our faith in its reliability.

All of this to say: If you are willing to share what aspects of the text the professor described as inconsistent, those here who are far better more skilled at exegesis than I will certainly be able to give coherent explanations of the text which they have spent a life-time meditating upon. Once the harmony of the text is plainly seen, 98% of the scholarly foundation of the need for multiple authors is entirely stripped away.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Adam and Benjamin:
Many thanks to both of you; those were the answers that I needed.

Update: Thanks for the advice, Paul -- I will talk to my professor and let you all know if he adds any more details to what he mentioned off-hand in lecture.

I've always found it best to see the prior account as the big picture, setting the stage, and the subsequent account in chap. 2 as honing in on what is important to the story as it develops in later chapters. For me that removes any apparent inconsistencies.

From my experience, the supposed flaws seen by liberals almost invariably reduce to sloppy reading on their part, and particularly to a failure to understand good literary principles. There was an excellent quote to that effect, but I lost it long ago.

__________________
Wayne Sparkman, Th.M.
Director, PCA Historical Center, St. Louis, MO
Blogs: The Continuing Story and PCA History Blog

Could you give some examples of these supposed inconsistencies?

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

I was taught JEDP too, sad thing that as also held by supposed evangelicals in addition to the higher critics. The good thing is, even among the higher critics, JEDP is now considered all but dead.

__________________
Willie Grills
Trinity Presbyterian Church
OPC
Huntington, WV

CS Lewis is well worth reading on that very point, I think in the essay known as "Fernseed and Elephants"?
He had seen a lot of cutting-edge liberal theories (in literary criticism as well as theology) come and go in his lifetime. His view was that if you hang in there (not his phrase!) even the most troubling of revolutionary ideas will eventually fade and die, while the Rock of truth remains.

__________________
JennyG
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Fife, Scotland

Not to be divisive or anything, but I would not necessarily regard Lewis as a sound theologian.

__________________
Tim Lindsay
member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, Halifax, NS, Canada
Living in Cape Town, South Africa
"under the Southern Cross, at the foot of Table Mountain, not far from the Cape of Good Hope"

no, nor me, definitely. In this case though he wasn't really dealing with theology so much as his experience of trends in textual criticism. He uses instances of fads in Classics and literature generally to shed light on the academic bankruptcy of the so-called Higher criticism.
On that subject I think he certainly knew what he was talking about, and he illustrates the point that Grillsy made.

Someone has already hinted that the division between the two 'accounts' is not found at 2:1 but rather 2:4. So when we read the opening chapters of Genesis from this perspective we see that the first account is given in light of a general or broader view of creation culminating in the creation of man, whereas 2:4ff. focuses more on man's place or standing (as head) within that creation, specifically the covenant of works that God made with man.

This is born out in the use of the word 'generations' in 2:4 which, as its later usage indicates, is a further explanation (not a contradiction) of what is recorded or happened in the previous narrative. See Genesis 5:1, 6:9, 10:1 etc.

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA

"What sort of pledge and how great is this of love towards us! Christ lives for us not for himself!"
John Calvin, Commentary on the Hebrews (7:25)

To elaborate on Rev. Kok's post a bit, there is the following on the "Tablet Theory", which seems to have some merit:

[from creationism.org/lang/Lang2DecadesCrtn/Lang2DecadesCrtn_8.htm]

The Tablet Theory

Over the past 100 years there has been controversy regarding the historical-critical method of studying Scripture. Clearly, evolution has entered the picture here. The Bible teaches that God used different laws while creating the universe from those He uses to maintain it. Also, it is indicated this took place approximately 6000 years ago. In attempts to harmonize Scripture with modern science, scholars devised the idea that Moses is not the author of Genesis, nor of the four following books of the Bible. It is claimed these books have four sources: a Priestly source, a Jehovah source, a Deuteronomy source, and an Elohim source. According to this method, sometimes a single verse is attributed to three different sources. It is sometimes also known as the JEDP theory and has been taught in many seminaries. Even in seminaries where it is rejected, a great deal of time is devoted to it.

In the LCMS, in about 1945, the historical-critical method began to be accepted and taught. This church body, having been conservative for so long, rejected this trend at its seminary in St. Louis and elected a conservative president, Dr. Jacob Preus. At the 1973 convention in New Orleans the seminary staff was censured, which led to a walk-out by many students and staff members.

The "Tablet Theory" was proposed by P. J. Wiseman, an archaeologist who uncovered tablets in the area of old Babylonia. He noted that the word toledoth or "generation" appeared at the end of each tablet as a signature. Students of Genesis have maintained that the eleven times where it is found (Genesis, chapters 1-37) it was at the head of a section. Apparently in Ruth, Chapter 4, it does appear at the head of a section. This led scholars to assume that in Genesis it also belonged at the head of a section. Wiseman's study led him to conclude that the signature belonged at the end and indicated the author of that section. He found that everything mentioned in the respective sections took place during the lifetime of that person. (An exception is in the case of Terah's tablet, Genesis 11, where some of the events took place after his death and in Jacob's tablet where some events listed in Esau's genealogy also took place after Jacob's death.) This is explained by noting that Moses used these tablets as source material, making necessary changes and additions. Moses, of course, was the final inspired writer. In some instances Moses placed current names of cities in brackets. He added years in Terah's tablet, but did not total them. Wiseman noted that often later tablets made reference to earlier tablets, as in quotations.

Author of the first tablet (Gen. 1:1-2:4) is God Himself. This is followed by Adam (Gen. 2:4-5:1) and Noah (Gen. 5:1-6:9). The sons of Noah (Shem, Ham and Japheth) wrote an eyewitness account of the Flood. Shem, who lived 500 years after the Flood, recorded the genealogies and the Tower of Babel incident. Terah records genealogies with numbers of years added in Genesis 11:12-19. Ishmael records most of the Abraham history (Gen. 25) which is followed by two tablets written by Esau, ending at Genesis 36:1. Jacob records the genealogies of Esau, ending with Genesis 37:2. Some people take exception to this theory on the grounds that Ishmael, Esau, and Terah (criticized in other parts of Scripture for their unholy actions) would not be chosen by God to record portions of Holy Scripture. However, even an adulterous woman such as Bathsheba was included in the genealogy of Christ. Acceptance of the tablet theory requires acceptance of the premise that there existed a written Bible before the time of Moses. [It would be better here to say " . . . the premise that there existed a written record of God's self-revelation before the time of Moses."

However, this theory does pose problems. In Ruth 4:18-22, Matthew 1:1-16, and even in Numbers 3:1, the word "generations" appears at the beginning of a listing. Although allowance may be made for a change in custom between the time of Ruth and of Matthew, there is reason to ponder. Perhaps the tablet theory needs modifying, but at present, it is an antidote to the JEDP theory and to historical-critical thinking.

Two Creation Accounts

The tablet theory provides an explanation for the two creation accounts. Some say the first account (Gen. 1:1-2:4) does not agree with the second account (Gen. 2:4-25). It is claimed that according to the first account, animals were created before man, but in the second account (they claim) man was made before the animals. This is explained by a reminder that in Genesis 2:19 the Hebrew pluperfect form is used, which would read "had formed." Thus, there would be no disagreement.

According to the tablet theory, God wrote the first account while Adam wrote the second; thus, there are two accounts of the same events by two individuals, each recording events according to his perspective. In the New Testament the four evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) record the life of Christ, each from his own viewpoint.
------end of transcript-----

Genesis 1:1 - 2:4 = 30,000 foot fly-by of creation
Genesis 2:5ff = The "up close and personal" reiteration of creation

At least the JEDP account of two "separate" creation accounts is better than the ridiculous two "actual" creation accounts held by some (i.e., the original creation followed by "Satan's rebellion" followed by a re-creation).

__________________
Carl Gobelman
Long Grove Community Church (Evangelical)
Vernon Hills, IL
Blog: http://newcreationperson.wordpress.com

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come."