Re: Re: Re: On Paleotheology

Let me start with an explanation that will give some perspective to my approach as a ‘paleotheologist.’ First off, I’m a relatively new believer—about 5 years. This puts me at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to having an extensive knowledge of Scripture or church history. For our purposes however, it seems I have a truly “paleo” vantage point—much of scripture is still new to me. The flipside of this is that I’ve felt, in these years as a Christian, a tendency to take that which is being taught to me about scripture and quickly accept is as the truth in order to make things easy for myself. My thought seems to be “well these people have been Christians for a lot longer than me, they obviously know more about it; I’m just going to take all that they say in faith.” While you gentlemen have had the benefit of many years to independently determine what you believe, I’ve put pressure on myself to figure it all out very quickly. Hopefully this journey we’re embarking on together will help me to take the time to fully see what the Lord is showing me.

Now for Genesis 1-2. What’s clear is that there are limitations to our understanding on several fronts: language- What was “the face of the deep?” (1:2) chronology- Where did the “waters” come from if God hadn’t yet created them? (1:2) the source of the genesis- where did the design for vegetation and trees come from? How did God come up with it? (1:12) and the very nature of God- God sees the light is “good,” but didn’t he know that would be so, since he designed and created it? (1:4)

But even given these limitations, what one can most easily take away is a sense that God gave consideration for all that he was doing. If he had the power to create the world in six days, certainly he would have had even the ability to create it in one. Perhaps he took his time so he could give due consideration for all he was doing.

It was perhaps His care and consideration that caused him to make Man and Woman in his own image. God knew He was God, and knew that an earthly creature created to resemble a god would have certain benefits or be favored in some way. But this raises and interesting question about the differences between men and women. Were they both created in God’s image? 1:27 says so. So what does God look like? Some sort of hermaphroditic cross between a male and a female? Or maybe ‘image’ is not meant in that way, perhaps it’s a reference to Man and Woman’s thought process or emotions rather than their bodies.

What one can see about both their emotions and their bodies though, is that they were made for one another. Woman was created to be, and chosen as, the most suitable “helper” (2:20) for man. But the connection seems to be much more than physical. Man passionately exclaims “this at last is bone of my bones/ and flesh of my flesh” (2:23) as though he had all along been waiting and longing for someone to be with besides God.

But the chronology is very confusing here. Genesis 2 leads us to believe that Man and Woman might have been created after the seventh day and that Man was created before plants (2:5) and before animals (2:18). It also suggests that some time passed between the creations of Man and Woman. But Chapter 1 makes it clear that both Man and Woman were created on the sixth day (1:26), after the creation of animals on the fifth day (1:24), and after plants on the third day (1:11).

I’m not here to find the cracks in Scripture, but I am trying to understand the Bible as a complete beginner might. And if I’m instructed to read Genesis as an accurate account of the beginnings of the earth, it’s imperative that I fully understand the story itself. I'm not sure I can confidently do that with the information I'm given, so I end up settling at "God created the heavens and earth and everything therein."

Caroline