Reading Genesis 1 and the Creation Account in Context: Part II (Sandra Richter)

seedbed.com
Seedbed's mission is to gather, connect, and resource the people of God to sow for a great awakening. // Find out more and join the awakening journey! seedbed.com

How should we understand Genesis 1-2 in context? What are the issues involved? Dr. Sandy Richter leads us in an introduction to these few chapters that are so foundational to the Christian faith. She argues that the central question for readers of the biblical text should be, "What is this author trying to say?"
// Study the Epic of Eden: Jonah with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/the-ep...
// Study the Epic of Eden: Ruth with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/the-ep...
//Study the Epic of Eden: Isaiah with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/the-ep...
// Study the Epic of Eden: Understanding the Old Testament with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/epic-o...
// Study the Epic of Eden: Psalms with Sandra Richter: my.seedbed.com/product/epic-o...

[@inaayabintmusab9612]

How refreshing it is to hear someone with a logical mind.

[@ChipKempston]

Excellent videos on how to read Genesis 1. It's not about geology, the fossil record, or even a mechanical explanation of God's creative activities; it's a theological explanation of proper relationships of Creator and creation.

[@camdawg1984]

What I appreciate about this interpretation is that it is not controlled by the evolution-creation debate at all. It is simply trying to take a look at what the author was trying to communicate by reading what the passage itself says and by examining what the passage would have meant to its original readers. This is the kind of interpretation of Scripture (consideration of literary and historical context) which is encouraged in most every other part of the Bible, but for some reason we struggle applying this sound biblical interpretation principle to Genesis 1 as well. But here we have it clear as day -- the correspondence of days 1-3 with days 4-6, the latter relating to the former as rulers over their kingdoms, but ending with God's "rest" on day 7 because it is He who rules over all. And our place in it all as creatures made in the image of God is to rule over His creation reflecting God's loving care into the rest of creation and to worship and love God as representatives of all creation, reflecting the worship of creation back to God in adoration. This is what Genesis 1 is about. This is much more profound and rich than we typically make Genesis 1 out to be. By ignoring the literary and historical context of the passage and instead making the passage conform to the cultural questions that our culture is telling us to ask is a way of actually being unfaithful to the passage itself. By the way, what Dr. Sandra Richter didn't mention (she is constricted to 7 minutes) is that this whole 7 day structure makes even further sense as a solution to the problem cited in Genesis 1:2 which spoke of the earth as a dark formless void. This is a strange place to begin a creation narrative for moderns, but not for the ancients. Darkness, formlessness, and voidness were problems to be solved, and God solves each with the creation of light, giving the earth (and cosmos) form through habitats in days 1-3, and filling those habitats with inhabitants to occupy and rule those habitats. He, thus, solved the problems of darkness, formlessness, and voidness with peaceful, sovereign majesty, and rests enthroned over all knowing that it is all good. Whereas the literal, scientific, chronological interpretation of Genesis 1 runs into problems with the creation of light (day 1) before the creation of the sun (day 4) and with the creation of the sun (day 4) after the creation of vegetation (day 3), the literary interpretation of Genesis 1 (structured logically rather than chronologically) makes perfect sense of the passage. It's time to reclaim Genesis 1 from the culture wars, and read it for all it's worth!!

[@vancesnyder2261]

Well said. It is time we 'take back' the rich and beautiful literature that is Genesis 1 and 2. The question is, are evangelical "fundamentalists" and thought leaders willing to read Genesis for all it's worth? There still is strong cultural (denominational and literalist) resistance to seeing the book of Genesis as it was meant to be read. Hopefully, a new generation of well informed Christians will break the cultural stronghold that binds evangelicalism today.

[@mystaffmystaff8803]

This woman is about as qualified as Bugs Bunny on teaching scripture. She is a liar and the truth is not in her. She is a false prophet and a child of the Devil leading the unlearned and the simple away from CHRIST. She states that she's a theologian, a person that studies and has knowledge of theology. She also bear a DR. or doctorate title meaning doctor of divinity, none of which have anything bro do with the scriptures that is the word of God. Her titles and studies are traditions of men taught by men for men not by God. There are NO theologians or doctors of divinity in the Bible or the kingdom of God! There are Apostles. Prophets, Evangelists, pastors and teachers. The word theology in itself is a derivative word and my meaning from the base word theos or theory that means to to study or speculate about, a supposition, I think, it might be, it could be, maybe we'll see, huh duh! Theory is never based on truth as the word of God is always based on. In the kingdom of God according to scripture women are NOT permitted to teach or have authority over men. This is God's clear will and commandment and any woman that does otherwise is a clear disgrace and REPROBATE and in flagrant rebellion against God's word and law!

[@groeisterk]

Absolutely awesome thx!!

[@VingTsunKuen585]

Great presentation! Thank you and God bless you!

[@Orthodoxy.Memorize.Scripture]

Great explanation!

[@jessecamping]

Exactly!!! Thank you......

[@damoncasale5305]

Excellent and concise explanation for Genesis 1...but as others have noted, that leaves a lot yet to be discussed and explained. Leaving aside the question of the fossil record and the literalness of Genesis 1 for the moment, the first question we should ask after what you've explained is...did Adam and Eve have the manpower, as it were, to "take dominion" when they were created by God? No they didn't, hence the command to be fruitful and multiply immediately before that. So, that also implies passing their faith in God to their descendants, in the hope and expectation that one day, one of them would be able to fulfill this command to "take dominion." Who fulfilled that command, then? King David did, when he conquered the nations surrounding Israel and put them to tribute, becoming a "king of kings" over them and foreshadowing how Christ would ultimately "take dominion" in the future. Sandra also notes that the Sabbath pictures a king at rest over a peaceful kingdom, and that's exactly the language we find in 2 Samuel 7:1 - where David conceives of the idea of building a permanent house for God - the Temple - to dwell in, so that God might permanently dwell with mankind as He did in Eden. Sandra also asked the question, why is Genesis 1 so different from Genesis 2-3? We have different titles for God, different structure, etc. Well, we can begin to answer that by noting a couple of things. Firstly, clay tablet archives written in Akkadian cuneiform, found at Mari, Nuzi and Ebla, were "labeled" on the ends of the tablets with what are called "colophons," often taking the form "these are the generations of X" or, more poetically, "this is the history of X." These "colophons" served the same function that a title on a book spine might. You wouldn't need to pull the tablet out from its shelf to read the colophon and know what the tablet was about! You may recognize this phrase as occurring in several places throughout Genesis, so the theory is that Genesis was originally composed on clay tablets written in Akkadian cuneiform! When a scribe later translated these into Hebrew and copied them into a scroll, they left the "colophons" **at the ends of the "tablet" sections**!!! Thus, we have Genesis 1:1-2:4a as the first "tablet," Gen. 2:4ff-5:1 as the second tablet, etc. That not only explains why the structure of Genesis 1 vs. 2-3 is so different, but also tells us who wrote each section! God wrote Gen. 1:1-2:4a, and Adam wrote Gen. 2:4ff-5:1! Moreover, there's actually a chiastic textual structure that spans all of Genesis 1-3. God and Adam wrote their respective tablets to fit together into a cohesive narrative - in a way that most scholars have never understood!!! A good example of a chiasmus is found in Gen. 6:22: A - Thus did Noah B - According to all that God commanded him A' - So he did. As you can see, A' parallels A, surrounding the central point of focus in B. Genesis 1-3 is simply one big, complex chiasmus with dwelling with God on the Sabbath day as the central focus! We have darkness in Gen. 1:1-2 in parallel with exile in Gen. 3:23-24, the creation of man in Gen. 1:26 in parallel with the creation of man in Gen. 2:7, and so on. I'd like to make one final, very crucial point in understanding Genesis 1-3, but to see it, we need to look at the parallel with King David. Was King David ruling over "animals" in his kingdom? No, he wasn't. King David was ruling over other human beings, obviously. And moreover, some Biblical passages use animals to symbolize Gentile (foreign) nations, so that should tell us something. In the exact same way, the "animals" in Genesis 1-3 were really OTHER HUMAN BEINGS WHO ALREADY EXISTED AT THAT TIME. The account of these "animals" is symbolic, not literal! We can see that by looking at Gen. 2:18-20. God claims that it's not good for man to be alone...so He brings THE ANIMALS to Adam, for him to name. But no suitable helper (wife) was found for him among them! Far from being a reference to possible bestiality, what this text was basically saying in symbolic language is that it wouldn't be appropriate for Adam to marry **a foreign woman who worshipped other gods**. Rather, he needed a God-fearing wife that HE could "take dominion" over...in a righteous way! (Compare Eph. 5:22-33.) In conclusion, Genesis 1-3 - and Genesis 1-11 for that matter - are part of an ancient literary genre known as "creation" literature. This literature had several important features in common, but one of the most important ones was that although creation literature often had some literal elements (e.g. Adam and Eve, since we have a genealogy coming down from them, and the Garden of Eden itself), IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE INTERPRETED LITERALLY. What Genesis 1-3 is really telling us is how God intends to establish a righteous "dominion" - in other words, a Kingdom - on earth, and how that plan is affected by sin. There's a lot more details to mine out of Genesis 1-3, but this is the central theme of it. As an aside, Genesis 1-11 has its own textual structure, which looks like this. Notably, it follows the tablet sections we mentioned earlier. A - Gen. 1:1-2:4a - Earth born out of water. B - Gen. 2:4ff-5:1 - God covenants with man, but sin and murder enter. C - Gen. 5 - Descendants of Seth D - Gen. 6:1-9 - Wicked generation of Noah's day (destroyed by the Flood) A' - Gen. 6:10-8:22 - Earth reborn out of water B' - Gen. 9:1-10:1 - God covenants with man and warns against murder, but sin enters. C' - Gen. 10 - Descendants of Noah D' - Gen. 11:1-10 - Wicked generation of the Tower of Babel (scattered) There are a lot of details to mine out of THIS structure as well, but we can discuss those another time.

[@crafterman2345]

I think the day-age interpretation and the framework interpretation go hand-in-hand

[@geraldmoore1836]

All ways brlived that very clear

[@falconguy4768]

The hard firmament above

[@thechristiancowboy6967]

Now I see why Heiser like you and quotes you so much...

[@primitivaroots]

what a pitty to reject the thoroughness of the text in order to avoid cultural conflicts. though i think she did a very good job in the aplication, i also think that you can't reject the plain meaning of a scripture.

[@falconguy4768]

God told us in the 10 commandments exodus 20 the sabbath day law

[@geraldmoore1836]

Thank you need more insight to.be clear om all this thanks mo.million.of years involed..

[@dougdoesit3013]

Good two part video. But I think a preacher, whose goal is to shepherd, must address whether or not the text represents literal history or figurative history. If presented as literal, then a good preacher/expositor should endeavor to anticipate and answer objections to that position. I agree that Genesis 1 & 2 does not address science. But in a day when almost every person in hearing range has sat through 12 years of an opposing creation account - one which they have probably heard more often and treated more thoroughly than the biblical one - I don't think the evolution objection can be ignored.

[@Hartm64]

24 hour day , really?

[@donnamccoy6524]

You might want to read Psalm 8 again.

[@lorellarouster6596]

Those, like me, who are concerned about the relation of the Biblical account of creation to geology, paleontology, etc. do not think Genesis is "about" dinosaurs. That's quite a straw man you have set up! The question is that since all of reality is clearly reality, then fossils and earth history have to fit together with the Biblical account. Otherwise, one would not be reality. Having understood what Genesis is about and what it teaches, we still have the issue of reconciling it with other parts of reality, or perhaps, of interpreting those parts of reality in a different way.

[@bencausey]

She didn’t set up that straw man - lots of modern christians did and she’s exposing that as foolishness.

[@randaldavid7685]

Sandra, I love your videos. I do however sense a bit of hostility towards the gap theory. I don't presume to be a old testament scholar but my understanding of the Hebrew is that the word was could just as accurately be translated became without form and void. I believe that became without form and void is probably what happened for many reasons. I firmly believe that when God creates something, he creates it perfect, look at the condition of the observable universe, asteroid belts, planets which are rotating on odd poles, etc. The universe does not appear to be in a state of perfection. Your objections about someone dropping a paragraph into the biblical text is mute as no one has, these statements are implied or suggested. It is true that the fall of Satan may not be mentioned at all in the scriptures. This would however be the most probable place for it to have happened if indeed it was mentioned in the scriptures. The first sin (The fall of Satan) would have had catastrophic effects in the heavens as the first sin (of Adam) on the earth had catastrophic ramifications for humanity and all life on earth. Just a suggestion.

[@rgnold2517]

Not really sure how she came up with this characterization of the "gap theory." It is completely inaccurate and quite unfair to scholars and theologians who have spent countless hours correlating information and scripture. To say that somebody dropped a paragraph between verse 1 and verse 2 of Genesis 1 just sounds spiteful. Up to this moment I had the utmost respect for this brilliant mind and enjoyed her lectures but now I find I may have been a bit too hasty and too free with my admiration. Lesson learned! Thank you.

[@brucestine7042]

Debate is wickedness Romans 1:29

[@grantbartley483]

no it's not

[@seektruth8333]

A bit of a cop out not refuting the established error of a 24-hr, 7 day creation in light of the reality of dinosaurs and fossil fuels.

[@brucestine7042]

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor ursurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:12… is the Word of God your final authority for all matters of faith and practice? Are you saved? How did you get saved? By the way, debris wickedness Romans 1:29

[@byrondickens]

Go away ignorant, misogynistic troll.

[@godjr.5711]

..The Pre.Adam.ites in Genesis 1 © that the ANGELS (sons of God) came down and made MIGHTY MEN OF VALOR WITH,{ not giants, nephilim, fallen angels , monster} WERE AFRICANS WOMAN ( daughter of men) that built the MEGALITH / PYRAMID .. but Europeans are trying to take that spot coming from a disobedient mutant aftertaught

[@keithbentley6364]

You read too much into genesis. It is a guess about cosmology and origins. It has had its day. Leave it in the dustbin of history.

[@carolinetrace894]

It's the word of God Himself Who created Heaven and Earth.

[@bedigeneyingu1692]

You read too little into it but you must be shocked that all the talk of evolution has fought Genesis and failed to wipe it out. Jesus didn't trash it and so believing in Jesus means believing in creation and so belief in creation will endure as long as belief in Jesus.