Creation Story

[The20thK]

So I wanted to split off the creation story conversations because I wanted to discuss what other PSD Christians believe about it. That's not to say that others cant discuss with us but I didn't want this evolving into a creation vs evolution debate. Although evolution will surely play a part, lets try to keep in into the context of its timeline and less about actual evolving part.

I believe that the creation story was literal. I believe the age of the earth is roughly 6000 years old. I reject the idea of the big bang, as far as it happening 13 billion years old (or however old it is now). I believe that a day is a day as is stated in Gen 1. I believe that any "age" that the appears in the earth is either wrongly interpreted or, like stated before, was already present at the creation.

[brett05]

agree

[The20thK]

agree

This is the internet... you're not allowed to do that.

[brett05]

This is the internet... you're not allowed to do that.

I change my answer to ....

AGREE

[Crovash]

Disclaimer: I am not Christian (but you know that)

I believe that there are two creation stories in “The Holy Bible”: Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4–2:25.

As I read them, m, they are both myths, not to be taken literally, but important in thier own right. The first is the “cosmological” myth (focusing largely the creation of the universe, earth and all of earth’s inhabitants), and the second is the “ontological” myth (focusing largely the creation of humans and human nature).

They originated at different times in the history of Israel.

[brett05]

Disclaimer: I am not Christian (but you know that)

I believe that there are two creation stories in “The Holy Bible”: Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4–2:25.

As I read them, m, they are both myths, not to be taken literally, but important in thier own right. The first is the “cosmological” myth (focusing largely the creation of the universe, earth and all of earth’s inhabitants), and the second is the “ontological” myth (focusing largely the creation of humans and human nature).

They originated at different times in the history of Israel.

It's one contiguous story. Genesis 2 provides details but it's the same story.

[Crovash]

It's one contiguous story. Genesis 2 provides details but it's the same story.

I disagree. As would a good many biblical scholars.

[SiteWolf]

I disagree. As would a good many biblical scholars.

I'm not sure I'm following. Genesis 1 is basically the first 6 days of creation, Genesis 2 starts with the 7th (not sure why they split the chapters there), then goes into Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden. I guess it depends on where you're marking the end of one story and the beginning of the next?

[The20thK]

I'm not sure I'm following. Genesis 1 is basically the first 6 days of creation, Genesis 2 starts with the 7th (not sure why they split the chapters there), then goes into Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden. I guess it depends on where you're marking the end of one story and the beginning of the next?

great point... it is one continuous story that someone in the 16th century added chapters and verses to.

[The20thK]

I disagree. As would a good many biblical scholars.

Honestly I have never heard your view before but it is an interesting one. When you say Biblical Scholars, what do you mean? and who do you mean?

[brett05]

I disagree. As would a good many biblical scholars.

None that I am aware of.

[SiteWolf]

My belief won't match what 20th K posted; suffice it to say I believe there are ways for science and religion to match up somewhat.

I do find it funny, however, that so many (not saying you since I don't know) can view the creation story as fairy tale, but claim it's 'proven' (and easier to believe) that the entire universe exploded into being in a millisecond from a single atom.

[Crovash]

This is not where I got my information initially (I remember the aforementioned facts from a religion course I took). But it does support what I learned in that course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesi...tion_narrative

Excerpt:

According to Biblical scholar Francis Andersen, misunderstanding the genre of the text—meaning the intention of the author(s) and the culture within which they wrote—will result in a misreading. Reformed evangelical scholar Bruce Waltke cautions against one such misreading: the "woodenly literal" approach, which leads to "creation science," but also such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory," the presumption of a "young earth," and the denial of evolution. As scholar of Jewish studies, Jon D. Levenson, puts it:

How much history lies behind the story of Genesis? Because the action of the primeval story is not represented as taking place on the plane of ordinary human history and has so many affinities with ancient mythology, it is very far-fetched to speak of its narratives as historical at all."

Another scholar, Conrad Hyers, summed up the same thought by writing, "A literalist interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there."

[The20thK]

This is not where I got my information initially (I remember the aforementioned facts from a religion course I took). But it does support what I learned in that course.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesi...tion_narrative

Excerpt:

According to Biblical scholar Francis Andersen, misunderstanding the genre of the text—meaning the intention of the author(s) and the culture within which they wrote—will result in a misreading. Reformed evangelical scholar Bruce Waltke cautions against one such misreading: the "woodenly literal" approach, which leads to "creation science," but also such "implausible interpretations" as the "gap theory," the presumption of a "young earth," and the denial of evolution. As scholar of Jewish studies, Jon D. Levenson, puts it:

How much history lies behind the story of Genesis? Because the action of the primeval story is not represented as taking place on the plane of ordinary human history and has so many affinities with ancient mythology, it is very far-fetched to speak of its narratives as historical at all."

Another scholar, Conrad Hyers, summed up the same thought by writing, "A literalist interpretation of the Genesis accounts is inappropriate, misleading, and unworkable [because] it presupposes and insists upon a kind of literature and intention that is not there."

Would you say that represents the majority view of Christianity? And doesn't this also have a presupposition that our current understanding of the age of the universe is correct? So if you start with that presuppostion, then you either have to deny the literalist viewpoint or make up "gap theory" or "day-age" theories to account for the presupposed age.

The problem becomes death. The Bible argues that thru sin death entered the world. This isn't a point of contingency among believers, although I admit it is among non-believers. If death entered before Adam, like the billions that must have died before Adam, then you have death before sin.

[Crovash]

Would you say that represents the majority view of Christianity?

Beats me. Though were I a betting man I would say yes (I am guessing that most Catholics, for example, do not have a literal reading of the bible, and there are a whole lot of Catholics in the world).

And doesn't this also have a presupposition that our current understanding of the age of the universe is correct? So if you start with that presuppostion, then you either have to deny the literalist viewpoint or make up "gap theory" or "day-age" theories to account for the presupposed age.

Maybe. Maybe not. I can deny the literalist viewpoint regardless — no need for a gap theory or a day-age theory.

The problem becomes death. The Bible argues that thru sin death entered the world. This isn't a point of contingency among believers, although I admit it is among non-believers. If death entered before Adam, like the billions that must have died before Adam, then you have death before sin.

You are correct. That is not a point that matters to me.