Sermon Tone Analysis

Genesis 2:4‑7

Were There Two Creations?

/This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created/.

/When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens — and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground — the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being/.

Liberal Christians have long argued that there are two accounts of Creation.

They argue that *Genesis One* and *Genesis Two* are separate, even contradictory accounts of Creation.

That position, clearly antagonistic toward those humble saints who avow the Word of God to be both accuracte and true, has been parroted by numerous individuals who think themselves wise because of their animosity toward the Word of God.

Unfortunately that antagonistic view has even found its way into the churches of this day until a surprising number of pulpits openly doubt the Word of God.

Shortly after arriving in Canada I was invited to address a student assembly sponsored by a Christian organisation on the campus of the University of British Columbia.

The topic assigned was Creation verses Evolution.

The advertising for this lecture generated considerable interest and assured that we would enjoy a full auditorium for the lecture.

I concluded my address on the day in question by inviting questions from those in attendance, a move which made a number of the sponsors visibly uneasy.

Worried sponsors of the lecture had forewarned me that a number of faculty members from the department of zoology would be present.

Throughout the previous week these same professors had openly stated their intent to embarrass me, exposing me as a fraud.

How could a scientist, trained in modern science, maintain the accuracy of the Word of God in the face of the overwhelming sentiment favouring the neo-orthodox doctrine of evolution.

Consequently, there was also in attendance a reporter for the *Vancouver Sun* who thought to record the spectacle since it might prove newsworthy.

When the opportunity to ask questions was extended a faculty member from the zoology department immediately asked what he apparently considered to be an unanswerable question.

The tone of his voice, the relaxed body posture and the jaunty tilt of his head together with the sneer on his lips served to indicate that he considered the entire presentation to have been so much foolishness.

He made it obvious that he did not concur with anything said to that point.

His very attitude conveyed contempt for such an unsophisticated position which would hold the Bible to be accurate and trustworthy.

His question was how I could ever hope to reconcile the two contradictory accounts of Creation.

Some of his colleagues actually snickered loudly as he finished his query.

Since he was seated on the front row, I walked to where he was seated and dropped my Bible in his lap.

“Show me,” I challenged, “where these two contradictory accounts are found.”

He was clearly uncomfortable.

Recoiling visibly from the Bible now situated squarely in his lap, he at last stammered out that he wasn’t certain where to find the accounts, but he was certain that they were there because he had read about them.

I used the occasion of his discomfort to instruct my listeners in one of the foundational points of scientific methodology.

A scientist recognises and avoids whenever possible secondary sources.

Scientific research preferentially cites primary sources whenever in support of a claim.

Turning to my erstwhile interlocutor I chided him, “You have never read the primary source.

You have never read the Bible, but you were willing to make pronouncements upon the veracity of the Bible based upon the statements of others who were themselves hostile to the Bible.

Would you not agree that you were unscientific in your own research into this issue?”

With that he agreed dumbly.

“Would you not agree,” I continued, “that you have asked a question for which you are unprepared to debate?”  Again he nodded dumbly.

His embarrassment still begged the question.

Were there two creation accounts?

Do liberal critics have a basis for such a claim?

The charge that there are two creation accounts has been advanced for at least two hundred years by antagonists of the Bible.

Why should those who accept the accuracy and veracity of the Word of God not agree to this charge of multiple accounts of the origin of all things?

What evidence keeps conservative Christians from succumbing to the allure to discredit the Word of God?

That is the focus of our study during this message.

*Critical Challenges* — The liberal view of Scripture, and especially the higher critical view of the Creation account, was well articulated by the Eighteenth Century.

Jean Astruc noted in 1753 that *in the Hebrew text of Genesis, God is designated by two different names.

The first is Elohim…  The other is Jehovah*.

He explained this by arguing that the Genesis account was from materials which had been transmitted orally or in written form over several centuries.

The material containing these names came from at least two separate sources, he proposed.

To substantiate his point of view he claimed that Genesis presented duplicate creation narratives (to say nothing of duplicate narratives of the Flood).

These narratives were distinguished, according to Astruc, by distinctions in the divine names.

For instance, the Name used for God in *Genesis 1* is !yhil¿a>, whereas the name used for God in *Genesis 2* is hw:hyÒ.

Thus Astruc postulated that these chapters had different origins and represented different views.[1]

The source theories advanced today are certainly more elaborate, but the idea is the same.

Critical scholars speak of four source documents, processes, or schools which underlie our current texts.

These proposed documents are those containing the names Jehovah or Elohim, designated *J* and *E* respectively.

In addition there are presumed to be a priestly document or process which is designated *P*, and a source attributed to a deuteronomic school which is referred to as *D*.

*Genesis 1* is argued to be a priestly document and therefore reflects the outlook of that school, whilst the second chapter is a combination of a Jehovah and Elohim text reflecting the outlook of those documents.

Reading the arguments of advocates of the source theory you might conclude that the evidence for the names of God were clear-cut.

This would be an incorrect assumption, however.

The name of God given in *Genesis 2* is actually !yhil¿a> hw:hyÒ which is translated in our Bible as /the //Lord// God/.

The name used in *Genesis 1* is !yhil¿a, the most general term used to speak of God.

This is the most appropriate term to use in this chapter, however, as this is a general account of creation.

The introduction of hw:hyÒ, the personal name of God, in chapter two is likewise appropriate as we are focusing on the personal relationship between the Creator and man.

Throughout the Bible, reasons for these different names can be suggested by differences just as those noted in these two chapters.

There is another great difficulty associated with this particular critical theory.

Professor E. J. Young called it *a psychological difficulty*.

He developed his thoughts in this manner.

If it is correct that the Pentateuch does consist of a number of documents which were finally pieced together by a redactor, then it must be acknowledged that the Pentateuch is a very remarkable work.

It is not the kind of writing that very many people could produce.

Undoubtedly it is one of the greatest writings in existence, and whoever was responsible for it was an artist and a genius…  But if [this] is so, then why did he make such a blunder at the very beginning as to put together two contradictory accounts of the creation?

If he was such a genius, would he not have realised that it was not very sensible to put two conflicting accounts of creation together?*[2]*

The problem should encourage an individual to look closer at the two accounts to see if there is not a good reason, perhaps several reasons, why they exist in the form in which we find them.

We should be encouraged when we realise that until the rise of modern critical scholarship no one seemed to have noticed that these two accounts were in conflict.

Assuredly there were plenty of critics about before these days late in the age.

Throughout the whole of history there have been opponents to the Word of God.

 

*Creation Account* — Strictly speaking, the account in *Genesis 2* does not begin until *verse four*.

*Genesis 2:1-3* is an account of the seventh day of creation and therefore properly belongs with *Genesis 1* as part of the account of the acts of God on the various days.

The second account (whether “contradictory” or not) begins with *verse four*: This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

This *fourth verse* appears to be rather simple and straightforward.

Perhaps you consider the verse to be unimportant.

Actually, it is a key verse and a battleground for two conflicting opinions.

Some scholars regard the verse as a conclusion to all that has gone before.

The technical term for this is *subscription* (from *sub* meaning *under* and *scriptus* meaning *written*).

Others consider the verse to be a *superscription* (from *super* meaning *over* and *scriptus* meaning *written*).

In other words, this verse is either a summary of all that has preceded or it is a caption for what follows.

The reason this is a key verse and the reason this is so important is that there are eleven such verses throughout the book [*Genesis 2:4*; *5:1*; *6:9*; *10:1*; *11:10*, *27*; *25:12*, *19*; *36:1*, *9*; *37:2*].

Each of these occasions is intended to summarise or introduce sections of the book.

Good Christians have disagreed over whether *Genesis 2:4* is a subscription or a superscription.

Some have appealed to the fact that each of these eleven instances involves a name (the account of Adam, the account of Noah, the account of Shem, etc.) and that the story of each of these individuals is in the verses immediately preceding.

They consider that a verse such as this is something like a signature verifying the data.

The problem with this view is that it fails to deal with the precise meaning of the word which the New International Version translates /account/ and which the older Authorised Version rendered /generations/.

The word in question, twdol]wto, comes from a root meaning *to bear* or *to beget*.

No doubt the translators of the NIV felt the word generations was too old-fashioned, but in this instance the word is more accurate than that which was chosen.

What is involved is the descendants of the person named.

Strictly speaking, then, the sentences in which this word occurs introduce descendants.

The reference in *Genesis 5:1* introduces the descendants of Adam.

The reference in *Genesis 6:9* introduces Noah and his descendants.

The reference in *Genesis 10:1* introduces the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

So on through Genesis.

Because of this literary device we could say that *Genesis* is divided into two parts.

The first, very short, part runs from *Genesis 1:1* to *2:3*.

This is the account of Creation.