Genesis 1 And Psalm 104: A Comparative Analysis
In order to fully understand the concept of creation found in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, information regarding the ideas of the cosmos help by ancient people must be discussed. Cosmos is a system of thought that sees the universe as a well-ordered whole. The context current western-societies have is very different from that of Middle Eastern and Israelite societies. The worldview of the Israelites was heavily influenced by that of ancient Mesopotamia; Therefore, it is believed that much of the material in the book of Genesis is based on Middle Eastern stories (Matthews & Moyer, 2012). This means that the study of nonbiblical stories is important to gain a full understanding of the text.
The ideas of the cosmos held by the ancient Middle East …show more content…
was based on a polytheistic system. In the creation accounts of ancient Mesopotamia, “the gods were personifications of the forces of nature” (Matthews & Moyer, 2012). They represented elements that can advantage or impair humans such as wind, storm, sea, and fertility. These forces were often portrayed in human form to enhance understanding. This meant that they could talk, eat, walk, and argue. As a whole, “the narratives describe the primordial history in terms of cosmic combat, with the gods continually battling for supremacy” (Matthews & Moyer, 2012), and those battles lead to the creation of Earth. Throughout all of the ancient Mesopotamia stories, order triumphs over chaos. This can be seen in Israelite traditions. Moreover, Israelite beliefs parallel the early Middle Eastern belief that humanity was to take care of resources on earth and honour the gods through prayer and sacrifice. The Israelite creation account found in Genesis 1 provides a framework story which acts as an outline for other narratives. One way that it is similar to ancient traditions is that “in both epics, creation takes place when the divine word is spoken” (Matthews & Moyer, 2012). However, the biblical creation accounts do not include the idea of a cosmic battle between gods. In biblical beliefs, God is superior to all of creation and the power of nature pales in comparison. The account in Genesis 1 reveals that the Israelite concept of the cosmos came to be as God spoke: “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light” (Genesis 1:3). Genesis 1 verses six through ten reveal that God made a boundary between the sky and water below, and one between the sea and the land. Altogether, Genesis 1 illustrates that God is involved in creation and that He gives it order. Correspondingly, Psalm 104 also gives insight into the cultural concepts of the Israelites. It is very similar to Genesis 1 in that it describes how God allowed the waters to be separated, placed the Earth on its foundations, and made darkness and light all by His authority. As in Mesopotamian traditions, order over chaos can be seen in both Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, especially in the context of bringing the waters under control. During the period the author wrote this, water was often linked to chaos through storm and flood. Verse seven declares that the waters fled at God’s rebuke which demonstrates that God’s control can triumph over chaos (“The Creation Theme in Genesis 1, Psalm 104 And Job 38-42,” 2017). Accordingly, Psalm 104 describes God as being personally involved in the creation of the world. Interestingly, Psalm 104 and the Mesopotamian Hymn to the Aten are very similar. This suggests that the author of Psalm 104 likely used the framework of the hymn in order to exalt God as higher than other gods (Matthews & Moyer, 2012). Knowing this background information allows the current reader to understand the way these passages operate from a functional view.
The western society that we live in has become increasingly materialistic so it makes sense that while reading texts such as Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 western readers would read them in a way that seeks for a material understanding. Just to clarify, a materialistic culture is one that focuses on material possessions. From a material worldview, people want answers and explanations. They want to know how to prove something scientifically rather with concrete answers. However, John Walton claims that with this mindset, the point of texts such those mentioned above is completely missed (“Origins Today: Genesis Through Ancient Eyes,” n.d.). The reader will only be left more confused if they read it with a material lens because that is not the way that the author meant for the text to be understood.
The intended audience of Genesis 1 had a functional worldview.
This means that they would read the text in order to understand the origins of the account while trying to grasp what the order and function of the account are. The functional view of creation is that “God is declaring purpose for the cosmos as an ordered space for people and as sacred space where he will dwell” (Walton, 2015). This means that Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 allow the reader to expand their view of the world and gain an understanding of how they are to live out their lives as people who bear God’s image (Walton, 2015). The material view places significance on the idea that God created the world ex nihilo, or out of nothing, and this has been a common argument among many. Though, if we are to understand the text with the context of the audience in mind, this was not an issue that Genesis 1 intended to speak to (Walton, 2015). Ultimately, Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 must be understood with a functional view rather than a material view because, “The activity of giving order and function to creation that God performs in Genesis 1 is not possible to define materially, naturally, or scientifically” (Walton, 2015). With this in mind, the western reader must understand that the text is not written to them and thus they must work harder to understand what the message is for the current culture. After all, it should be assumed that the author of Genesis 1 knew what he was talking about and communicated it in a way that the intended audience would understand (“Origins Today: Genesis Through Ancient Eyes,”
n.d.). Understanding this, it is clear that thinking about science in relation to religious belief is challenging. This is where the teleological argument comes into play. The teleological argument is based on the deductive reasoning of the fine-tuning of the universe. Deductive reasoning moves from a general idea to a specific conclusion. The idea behind fine-tuning is that If the numbers of the physics of the universe were not exactly right, carbon-based life would not be possible. Humans are made of carbon, so that means that if the numbers were not right, humans would cease to exist. If one number was altered by the smallest amount, all of Earth would be non-existent because there would be no stars, which means there would be no planets, and in turn, no life. The video “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” proposes three suggested ways fine-tuning that could have come to be: necessity, chance, and design. Necessity suggests that the constants and values found in the universe simply could not be any different and thus they are what they are. However, there is no reason or evidence for this, so that conclusion is crossed out. The second is chance, which suggests that maybe we just got really lucky. Maybe there is a universe generator that constantly produces new universes and ours happened to be produced precisely. Yet, there is no scientific evidence of a universe generator and even if there was, the generator itself would also require fine-tuning. Therefore, this does not explain why fine-tuning exists. The third, and most satisfying, conclusion is that of design: Design is the idea that some great creator put the world together and fine-tuned those numbers (William, 2016). Altogether, the argument suggests that without there being divine intervention at some point in time, nature could not account for the existence of human life (“What is the ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe, and how does it serve as a ‘pointer to God,’ n.d.). Like the concepts of necessity and chance, the concept of design is not proven, but it is the best reasoning nonetheless. Again, text such as Genesis 1 and Psalms 104 require understanding in a functional sense rather than from a scientific point of view, which will allow the reader to believe that the heavens declare the glory of God and that creation’s impeccable design proves God’s existence.
The ideas of the cosmos held by the ancient Middle East …show more content…
was based on a polytheistic system. In the creation accounts of ancient Mesopotamia, “the gods were personifications of the forces of nature” (Matthews & Moyer, 2012). They represented elements that can advantage or impair humans such as wind, storm, sea, and fertility. These forces were often portrayed in human form to enhance understanding. This meant that they could talk, eat, walk, and argue. As a whole, “the narratives describe the primordial history in terms of cosmic combat, with the gods continually battling for supremacy” (Matthews & Moyer, 2012), and those battles lead to the creation of Earth. Throughout all of the ancient Mesopotamia stories, order triumphs over chaos. This can be seen in Israelite traditions. Moreover, Israelite beliefs parallel the early Middle Eastern belief that humanity was to take care of resources on earth and honour the gods through prayer and sacrifice. The Israelite creation account found in Genesis 1 provides a framework story which acts as an outline for other narratives. One way that it is similar to ancient traditions is that “in both epics, creation takes place when the divine word is spoken” (Matthews & Moyer, 2012). However, the biblical creation accounts do not include the idea of a cosmic battle between gods. In biblical beliefs, God is superior to all of creation and the power of nature pales in comparison. The account in Genesis 1 reveals that the Israelite concept of the cosmos came to be as God spoke: “And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light” (Genesis 1:3). Genesis 1 verses six through ten reveal that God made a boundary between the sky and water below, and one between the sea and the land. Altogether, Genesis 1 illustrates that God is involved in creation and that He gives it order. Correspondingly, Psalm 104 also gives insight into the cultural concepts of the Israelites. It is very similar to Genesis 1 in that it describes how God allowed the waters to be separated, placed the Earth on its foundations, and made darkness and light all by His authority. As in Mesopotamian traditions, order over chaos can be seen in both Genesis 1 and Psalm 104, especially in the context of bringing the waters under control. During the period the author wrote this, water was often linked to chaos through storm and flood. Verse seven declares that the waters fled at God’s rebuke which demonstrates that God’s control can triumph over chaos (“The Creation Theme in Genesis 1, Psalm 104 And Job 38-42,” 2017). Accordingly, Psalm 104 describes God as being personally involved in the creation of the world. Interestingly, Psalm 104 and the Mesopotamian Hymn to the Aten are very similar. This suggests that the author of Psalm 104 likely used the framework of the hymn in order to exalt God as higher than other gods (Matthews & Moyer, 2012). Knowing this background information allows the current reader to understand the way these passages operate from a functional view.
The western society that we live in has become increasingly materialistic so it makes sense that while reading texts such as Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 western readers would read them in a way that seeks for a material understanding. Just to clarify, a materialistic culture is one that focuses on material possessions. From a material worldview, people want answers and explanations. They want to know how to prove something scientifically rather with concrete answers. However, John Walton claims that with this mindset, the point of texts such those mentioned above is completely missed (“Origins Today: Genesis Through Ancient Eyes,” n.d.). The reader will only be left more confused if they read it with a material lens because that is not the way that the author meant for the text to be understood.
The intended audience of Genesis 1 had a functional worldview.
This means that they would read the text in order to understand the origins of the account while trying to grasp what the order and function of the account are. The functional view of creation is that “God is declaring purpose for the cosmos as an ordered space for people and as sacred space where he will dwell” (Walton, 2015). This means that Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 allow the reader to expand their view of the world and gain an understanding of how they are to live out their lives as people who bear God’s image (Walton, 2015). The material view places significance on the idea that God created the world ex nihilo, or out of nothing, and this has been a common argument among many. Though, if we are to understand the text with the context of the audience in mind, this was not an issue that Genesis 1 intended to speak to (Walton, 2015). Ultimately, Genesis 1 and Psalm 104 must be understood with a functional view rather than a material view because, “The activity of giving order and function to creation that God performs in Genesis 1 is not possible to define materially, naturally, or scientifically” (Walton, 2015). With this in mind, the western reader must understand that the text is not written to them and thus they must work harder to understand what the message is for the current culture. After all, it should be assumed that the author of Genesis 1 knew what he was talking about and communicated it in a way that the intended audience would understand (“Origins Today: Genesis Through Ancient Eyes,”
n.d.). Understanding this, it is clear that thinking about science in relation to religious belief is challenging. This is where the teleological argument comes into play. The teleological argument is based on the deductive reasoning of the fine-tuning of the universe. Deductive reasoning moves from a general idea to a specific conclusion. The idea behind fine-tuning is that If the numbers of the physics of the universe were not exactly right, carbon-based life would not be possible. Humans are made of carbon, so that means that if the numbers were not right, humans would cease to exist. If one number was altered by the smallest amount, all of Earth would be non-existent because there would be no stars, which means there would be no planets, and in turn, no life. The video “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe,” proposes three suggested ways fine-tuning that could have come to be: necessity, chance, and design. Necessity suggests that the constants and values found in the universe simply could not be any different and thus they are what they are. However, there is no reason or evidence for this, so that conclusion is crossed out. The second is chance, which suggests that maybe we just got really lucky. Maybe there is a universe generator that constantly produces new universes and ours happened to be produced precisely. Yet, there is no scientific evidence of a universe generator and even if there was, the generator itself would also require fine-tuning. Therefore, this does not explain why fine-tuning exists. The third, and most satisfying, conclusion is that of design: Design is the idea that some great creator put the world together and fine-tuned those numbers (William, 2016). Altogether, the argument suggests that without there being divine intervention at some point in time, nature could not account for the existence of human life (“What is the ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe, and how does it serve as a ‘pointer to God,’ n.d.). Like the concepts of necessity and chance, the concept of design is not proven, but it is the best reasoning nonetheless. Again, text such as Genesis 1 and Psalms 104 require understanding in a functional sense rather than from a scientific point of view, which will allow the reader to believe that the heavens declare the glory of God and that creation’s impeccable design proves God’s existence.