The TE Creation Story

[Scotishfury09]

To YECs: SUPPOSE the Earth and Universe really are billions of years old. Suppose that God were to explain to humans for the first time how the universe was created. What would that account be like? What would he say to his creation about how they were created?

 

[shernren]

This should be interesting to watch.

*grabs popcorn and chooses the squishiest, comfy-est spot on the couch.*

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well lets see...

If I were God and I had to explain my actions to a primitive Near Eastern culture plauged by animism, polytheism, and chaos cosmology...

I'll probably write a creation account that showed that I alone was creator of the universe, and not other gods.

I'd probably also write a creation account that showed that the creations themselves weren't divine.

I'd probably also write a creation story that showed that the creation was purposeful and not the unintended product of some primeval war among the gods.

Oh, and I'd probably write a creation myth that showed the universe is well ordered by seperating the poetic stanzas into a series of six days with the realms of creation in the first three and the rulers of the realms in the corresponding set of days.

And to top it off, I would show that all creation, and its crowning acheivement, man, is geared toward finding the ultimate rest in God that the culture receiving this story calls the Sabbath.

Yeah, my theistic evolutionist creation myth would go something like that.

Man Genesis 1 is beautiful.

 

[philadiddle]

I would explain exactly how I did it in scientific detail. Then when no one could grasp it, and no one with the worldview held at that time would believe it longe enough for the creation story to stick around, I would try again but put a little more theology and less science into it. But, even though the theology makes sense, the science part would still be gibberish so it wouldn't stick around very long. Maybe I could add a little myth to it so it would make more sense to the ppl at that time. Still too much of an estranged cosmology for it to be accepted.

This cycle would continue till I came up with Genesis 1-2.

 

[Deamiter]

To the YECs who happen upon the thread -- please do ignore the TEs who can't help but butt into the thread directed toward YECs only. We really would like an answer to this question!

The question would probably be better posed in the YEC-only forum, but we're not allowed to even ask an honest question in there any more. Perhaps a YEC would be willing to post it in there if nobody steps up to respond here?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

To the YECs who happen upon the thread -- please do ignore the TEs who can't help but butt into the thread directed toward YECs only. We really would like an answer to this question!

The question would probably be better posed in the YEC-only forum, but we're not allowed to even ask an honest question in there any more. Perhaps a YEC would be willing to post it in there if nobody steps up to respond here?

My apologies.

I really don't understand the logic of asking YECs to put themselves in TE shows when you've got a bunch of TEs on hand, though....

 

[Deamiter]

My apologies.

I really don't understand the logic of asking YECs to put themselves in TE shows when you've got a bunch of TEs on hand, though....

You will often find YECs claiming that Genesis 1-7 cannot be anything but a factual and historical account. They often similarly claim that this is self-evident and that TEs need to bend over backwards to interpret it differently.

It's often hard to get a YEC to move beyond "it's obvious" and support their interpretation with something other than personal beliefs. If it is obvious when a verse is historical and factual, it should be simple to construct an example of a similar historical/factual account in the style of Genesis 1-7 that shows what might have been written if Genesis 1-7 taught old age.

We all know how TEs approach interpretation of early Genesis -- the question is whether YECs have a consistant hermeneutic. If they do, constructing an example of a particular type of account should be simple.

If YECs continue to utterly refuse to engage in a discussion of their interpretation, perhaps the thread could be salvaged by asking for a TE's example of what Genesis would look like if the Earth were no more than 6ky old.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Is it safe to say most YECs believe the creation story would be the same?

 

[Deamiter]

Is it safe to say most YECs believe the creation story would be the same?

Sorry, but I don't understand. Most YECs believe the creation story would be the same as what?

 

[Scotishfury09]

The story would be the same if the universe was billions of years old. God probably wouldn't try and explain to them the science behind it, He would only explain that He created it all and for a purpose, like Gratia said. My point is that if the creation story would be the same no matter how old the universe is, why should we assume the universe is young based on something that could pertain to both views?

 

[HypnoToad]

Is it safe to say most YECs believe the creation story would be the same?

I certainly would not expect it to be the same.

I'd expect not to see light before the stars.

I'd expect not to see the earth before stars.

I'd expect not to see plants before the sun.

I'd expect not to see birds before land animals.

I'd expect not to see certain plants not growing until people show up.

I'd expect there to be rain.

I'd expect animals be given for food to other animals, not restricted to just plants.

That's just what I can think of at the moment.

 

[shernren]

Would any of those points have had any theological or doctrinal significance for the Jews?

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Would any of those points have had any theological or doctrinal significance for the Jews?

Of course they would have. It has always been part of the vocation of the people of God to reveal incidental scientific truths to the world and use them as borders and guidelines to push science in an acceptable direction.

That's what kosher laws were all about, didn't you know?

 

[HypnoToad]

Would any of those points have had any theological or doctrinal significance for the Jews?

Who knows?

But that's not the question of the thread.

The question is how would I expect the creation account to be different if TE were correct. I'd expect all those account details I mentioned, which would all then be incorrect, to be different.

 

[Deamiter]

Who knows?

But that's not the question of the thread.

The question is how would I expect the creation account to be different if TE were correct. I'd expect all those account details I mentioned, which would all then be incorrect, to be different.

Right, so if the people writing the passages found the primary and even secondary meaning to be in the symbolic and allegorical depth in the passages, why would you expect the factual details to be different? Isn't it clear that the factual newspaper-style accounts we value today were considered boring and even less accurate in the ancient near east where meaning was held as more important than facts?

 

[HypnoToad]

... if the people writing the passages found the primary and even secondary meaning to be in the symbolic and allegorical depth in the passages ...

Why are we assuming that?

 

[artybloke]

Why are we assuming that?

a) Lack of any reasonable effective technology for gathering scientific/historical information in the ancient world (eg no glass, no separate numerical system, no calculus, no algebra, etc etc etc...)

b) Lack of any writings that use a scientific methodology from anywhere in the world at this time (including the writings of so-called historians like Herodotus.)

c) The simple fact that 95% of the ancient world at least at any one time would have been illiterate. How do you communicate truth any other way to people except through story?

 

[HypnoToad]

a) Lack of any reasonable effective technology for gathering scientific/historical information in the ancient world (eg no glass, no separate numerical system, no calculus, no algebra, etc etc etc...)

b) Lack of any writings that use a scientific methodology from anywhere in the world at this time (including the writings of so-called historians like Herodotus.)

c) The simple fact that 95% of the ancient world at least at any one time would have been illiterate. How do you communicate truth any other way to people except through story?

So how, exactly, does all that preclude using a literal account?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Because of the culture at that time all of the things you said wouldn't have made any difference to them. IMHO Moses was giving the Hebrews at that time a story that they could relate to that told how God created the universe without getting into the specific details because no one had the slightest clue as to how it really happened. Thousands of years later we are more capable of determining how it actually happened through the scientific method. If we read it as it was intended for only us, yes, you will get a young earth, but it was intended for that time and that culture. It still has meaning and truth for us, but the specific details that YECs hang on to are not supposed to be specific details.

 

[Deamiter]

So how, exactly, does all that preclude using a literal account?

Well the Hebrew, Assyrian and Egyptian cultures (which heavily influenced each other) certainly didn't seem to think that recording accurate ages was important when using symbolic ages could tell so much more about a person and his life. Throughout ANE literature there is an emphesis on meaning over facts. The real question should be, why would you assume that they valued facts when there's not a single mention of the importance of factual accuracy in any period literature!

That they didn't value scientific newspaper-like reporting the way we do thousands of years later is far from an assumption, it's a conclusion that most period scholars have come to through years of study.