Polarization and beliefs on Creation

[damoncasale]

I was slightly troubled by the signup process where one was asked to pick a denomination. I understand why this is necessary, as some forums are orthodox Christians only. I find myself in no clear category, however, so I picked the one that would let me post where I felt like I responsibly could, but I don’t feel that it really identifies me very well.

I have two Christian parents who both believe very differently, so I grew up with lots of questions. Then I went to college and ended up with more questions. I certainly don’t disbelieve in God, but I don’t feel comfortable with any of the conventional labels.

That being said, I joined this forum because I wanted to test the waters and ask two things:

1. Has anyone in this particular subforum had a similar experience, where they were confronted with a close family member who either had an atheistic or drastically different faith than the rest of the family, someone that they interacted with over a long period of time, and
2. How has that shaped your beliefs regarding Creation?

For instance, one of my parents absolutely and firmly believes in young-Earth Creationism, while the other is open to the possibility that the Earth could be older than 6,000 years.

After having looked around and seen so many examples of polarization, whether it be inter-religious, religious vs. secular/scientific, political, or on modern global issues such as Middle East peace, climate change, or even health care, I’m convinced that there has to be a better way to resolve differences than the way things are working now. So, I wanted to try a new method, starting with looking at origins.

I recently asked the following questions on a secular humanist forum:

"When Heinrich Schliemann overcame the prevailing skepticism that a long-dead Greek poet might have been accurate in claiming existence of the ancient Greek city of Troy, people didn't suddenly start worshipping Zeus and Aphrodite. In the same way, it should be possible to prise out whatever historical basis may be found in the bible – and even the early chapters of Genesis – without necessarily believing in a Creator. Right?

"Secondly, what I don't think anyone has ever done – certainly not Ken Ham or Bill Nye in their recent debate – is to compare the biblical creation account with other ancient creation literature and ask, how was other creation literature meant to be understood? Was it meant to be understood literally? If not, how was it supposed to be interpreted? (And for those of you who think the bible should be set apart from all other literature in terms of how we interpret it, look what happened when we had another religion – namely, Islam – do the same thing. I don't think that’s necessarily a good idea.) If we interpret the biblical creation account the same way, what do we get?

"In the end, is it possible to achieve sort of a middle position between biblical literalism and complete skepticism, one that honors the source text without ignoring potential flaws, issues of transmission, etc.? And in terms of reaching a consensus view between Christians and atheists, is it possible to arrive at the most likely intended meaning of the text, whether or not one might agree with the text itself?"

Now, of course I’m not going to be asking Christians to look at the text and leave God out of the picture. Nevertheless, can we step back and be a little more objective about this issue for a moment?

Here are a few comparisons to consider:

1. Other ancient creation literature was never intended to be interpreted literally, although it almost always had literal elements. For instance, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, there really was a King Gilgamesh, but he never went in search of the fabled plant of life.
2. Creation literature was generally written to communicate a truth about the culture which produced it. For instance, one Babylonian creation myth described a titanic battle between Marduk and Tiamat, representing the forces of order vs. chaos. Another described how the gods created mankind as servants. This probably correlated with the taxation system, as people were responsible for paying specific tithes to the local temple as a payment to a particular god.
3. Ancient creation literature was never meant to be interpreted to say that the people who wrote it were the only people alive at that time. The ancient Egyptians, for instance, had trade with Mesopotamia from the earliest times, going back to before the beginning of dynastic Egypt.
4. Other ancient creation literature often identified a "place where creation occurred." This was a specific, geographical location. A real place, in other words. For instance, in one Egyptian creation myth, a mound of earth rose out of the primordial waters, and the Bennu bird landed on the ben-ben stone in the center of this mound. Suddenly there was light. This stone became the foundation stone of a temple – specifically, the temple of Heliopolis (the biblical On). This place is always a place important to the culture which produced the creation literature in question.
5. In other ancient literature in general, genealogies were extremely important, being the way that land ownership issues were decided (since land was typically inherited and passed down from generation to generation in a family). They were taken very seriously and not typically "made up". Granted, there are somewhat unusual examples of "genealogies" in both Egyptian literature and Mesopotamian literature, king lists with regnal periods in the thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years. Even so, these are most likely references to astronomical cycles and events rather than actual people. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia were highly concerned with astronomical and astrological observations.

So far, by looking at the biblical creation story in the same way, we'd get the following:

1. It was a mythological story designed to communicate something important about God’s relationship with man. Nevertheless, it contains elements of historical fact.
2. Adam and Eve were not the first people.
3. The biblical “place where creation occurred” is the Garden of Eden, which was a real place. It wasn’t in Iraq because that's where Mesopotamian creation literature would place it. It was in a place important to the author of the early chapters of Genesis.
4. The biblical genealogy coming down from Adam identifies Adam and Eve as real people. The long lifetimes could indicate a completely separate subspecies (as scientists are able to test and determine the likely lifespan of a person by analyzing remains, specifically bones, and the average lifespan of humans around 4000 – 3500 BC is about 35-40 years, not hundreds of years). They would have to be much less numerous than the rest of humanity. It could also indicate a pious inflation of lifespans, but I find that less likely since genealogies were generally not tampered with (at least, not at this point in history, although that did happen later when the Septuagint was translated).

And by the way, by delving even deeper we can determine almost exactly where the Garden of Eden was. Also, it turns out that Genesis 1-3 was written as a polemic against moral relativism. Meaning, they took the extant "creation literature" and, using the same literary style, deliberately turned it around to say something completely different from anything else at the time.

What do you think? Is this a "reasonable" approach to interpreting the biblical Creation story? An approach that doesn't attack or invalidate God as God, while still attempting to reconcile it with the cultural context it came from, and with what we know from science today?

Damon

 

[Resha Caner]

Throughout the entire post I got the impression you're seeking peace. The last sentence, where you ask if this "reconciles" the issue seems to support that possibility.

To answer your question, no, I don't think this will reconcile anything. If I am correct in that, where do we go from here?

 

[damoncasale]

No idea. I guess that goes back to my first, two-part question. How many people on here come from basically a religiously divided family? Having come from one myself, I guess my desire for peace comes from the experience of never seeing my parents get anywhere when it came to dealing with their respective differences.

What kind of saddens me is something I read not too long ago on climate change. Even though I don't think *all* climate change is man-made, the article I read expressed the view that many fundamentalist Christians simply ignore climate change out of a belief that Jesus is coming soon and will "rapture" them away. Therefore, the issue won't ultimately matter.

While I'm not sure how true that is, it does certainly make a good case for wanting to sort out the issue of origins in order to not only deal with inter-Christian bickering, but also to deal with legitimate issues of stewardship of the planet.

Damon

 

[ChetSinger]

No idea. I guess that goes back to my first, two-part question. How many people on here come from basically a religiously divided family?

Hello, damoncasale, and welcome to CF! I do.

Having come from one myself, I guess my desire for peace comes from the experience of never seeing my parents get anywhere when it came to dealing with their respective differences.

I'm going to suggest that your parents may never agree on this single issue in Christianity. Creation is only one of many potential flash points in a Christian marriage. Other flash points are issues such as these:

• One partner wants to tithe and the other doesn't.
• One partner wants to send the children to a private Christian school and the other doesn't.
• One partner wants to spend vacation time on missions work and the other doesn't.

And those are just three of many.

I have a couple of observations to make. First, your parents may never agree on this issue. Second, it's not your responsibility to see that they do.

Last of all, do your own investigations into creation and be at peace with what you conclude. Yet always remain ready to question your own conclusions, and always put Christ first.

I'll take a moment to share what I think. I think we all came from Adam and through Noah, in large part because that's what I think the authors of the NT believed and taught. And because the NT is my guidebook. And because I'm a Christian who already believes in a lot of things that many people scoff at, such as Jesus walking on the water and rising from the dead.

I hope you find the peace you're looking for, and I think Christ can provide it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I have a couple of observations to make. First, your parents may never agree on this issue. Second, it's not your responsibility to see that they do.

Chet has some good advice here.

Last of all, do your own investigations into creation and be at peace with what you conclude. Yet always remain ready to question your own conclusions, and always put Christ first.

This is also good advice, though I might rephrase it as: Ask God to lead you to an answer, and be willing to accept answers like, "We don't know."

Honestly, I don't find evolution/creation all that interesting as a topic. What piques my curiosity is asking why people debate it so much. What do they think is at stake?

While I'm not sure how true that is, it does certainly make a good case for wanting to sort out the issue of origins in order to not only deal with 1) inter-Christian bickering, but also to deal with legitimate issues of 2) stewardship of the planet.

I added the numbers to your statement, as it seems you're giving two answers to my question about what is at stake. For #1, that is a noble goal as long as peace is not made at the expense of truth.

For #2, I wouldn't make the connection that this issue affects stewardship, but I'd be curious to know why you think it does.

 

[damoncasale]

Hi Chet. Thanks for the warm welcome.

My parents aren't the *only* reason I'm looking for "peace" as another poster already put it, although my religiously divided background certainly contributed. It also comes from seeing the exact same sort of polarization happen in many more places than just in a religiously divided family.

Polarization just seems to be a human thing, basically.

So, I'd like to be able to take my experiences growing up, for better or for worse, and put them to use in finding ways to handle polarization. That doesn't mean forcing agreement where agreement just isn't going to happen, but rather finding ways to work together despite differences. And if there are things that *can* be agreed on, so much the better.

I find it useful to put oneself in someone else's shoes, to try to understand how they developed their beliefs which might be different from one's own. That's kind of why I asked if others had likewise come from religiously divided families. Since we've all had different religious experiences, I expect those different experiences have affected their beliefs in different ways, and I suspect that it's a lot easier to be firmly convicted of one's beliefs regarding things like origins if one comes from a religiously unified background, as opposed to a divided one.

Of course, I also suspect that those believers who tend to be interested in discussing/debating the question of origins are those in the first place who are the more heady, intellectual types as opposed to coming more from the heart. I have to confess I'm a bit of both, although I definitely lean more on the intellectual side. Which isn't necessarily a good thing, but I prefer to at least use that in service to others, if at all possible.

Damon

 

[mark kennedy]

I was slightly troubled by the signup process where one was asked to pick a denomination. I understand why this is necessary, as some forums are orthodox Christians only. I find myself in no clear category, however, so I picked the one that would let me post where I felt like I responsibly could, but I don’t feel that it really identifies me very well.

I have two Christian parents who both believe very differently, so I grew up with lots of questions. Then I went to college and ended up with more questions. I certainly don’t disbelieve in God, but I don’t feel comfortable with any of the conventional labels.

I'd say that makes you pretty normal, your aware of the revelation of God at some level (Rom. 1:18-20), you just don't know Him on a personal level. I like how Alcoholics Anonymous handles that, they call it 'God as you understand him'. I appreciate your candor, it sounds like you have some interesting and thoughtful questions, I'll do what I can to help you with them.

That being said, I joined this forum because I wanted to test the waters and ask two things:

1. Has anyone in this particular subforum had a similar experience, where they were confronted with a close family member who either had an atheistic or drastically different faith than the rest of the family, someone that they interacted with over a long period of time, and
2. How has that shaped your beliefs regarding Creation?

Nothing comes to mind, most of the posters have made up their minds before they start posting here. I can't say I recall having an exchange with someone who is undecided. You have to understand, for a Christian God being Creator is a given. What we debate on here is how He went about it, Creationists will tell you in an instant exactly as described in Genesis 1,2 and the Theistic Evolutionist believes He used (guided) evolution. There is no question in the context of Christian theism that God is Creator.

For instance, one of my parents absolutely and firmly believes in young-Earth Creationism, while the other is open to the possibility that the Earth could be older than 6,000 years.

I take the Bible about as literally as anyone your libel to meet on here and I'm convinced that the earth and the universe are billions of years old. I see a time 'gap' between Genesis 1:1,2 and Genesis 1:3 when Creation Week started. I'm not totally dogmatic about it but the emphasis in Genesis 1 is the creation of life in general and man in particular. The age of the earth and the universe is a secondary issue, it's of no great significance to me one way or the other.

After having looked around and seen so many examples of polarization, whether it be inter-religious, religious vs. secular/scientific, political, or on modern global issues such as Middle East peace, climate change, or even health care, I’m convinced that there has to be a better way to resolve differences than the way things are working now. So, I wanted to try a new method, starting with looking at origins.

It's always encouraging to have a peacemaker posting to the forums. Welcome.

I recently asked the following questions on a secular humanist forum:

"When Heinrich Schliemann overcame the prevailing skepticism that a long-dead Greek poet might have been accurate in claiming existence of the ancient Greek city of Troy, people didn't suddenly start worshipping Zeus and Aphrodite. In the same way, it should be possible to prise out whatever historical basis may be found in the bible – and even the early chapters of Genesis – without necessarily believing in a Creator. Right?

Sure, it's one of the more popular approaches to the Scriptures in modern academics. Archeologists are always looking for clues to history wherever they can find them. I was reading recently about an Archeologist who was reading about an ancient aqueduct running from Israel to the Negev, a desert region south of Israel. He followed the clues in the Scriptures and came up with a course for an aqueduct that is in service to this day. He strongly stated that taking the Bible literally was a bad idea, I believe he was even an atheist but that didn't stop him from learning something from it.

"Secondly, what I don't think anyone has ever done – certainly not Ken Ham or Bill Nye in their recent debate – is to compare the biblical creation account with other ancient creation literature and ask, how was other creation literature meant to be understood? Was it meant to be understood literally? If not, how was it supposed to be interpreted? (And for those of you who think the bible should be set apart from all other literature in terms of how we interpret it, look what happened when we had another religion – namely, Islam – do the same thing. I don't think that’s necessarily a good idea.) If we interpret the biblical creation account the same way, what do we get?

Most of the mythologies from the Mediterranean area from our distant pass will trace creation, not back to gods but to elementals (earth, air, fire and water), water was popular with the Greeks. The Hebrew Scriptures are a little different, God is the Creator of everything. Religious literature from ancient times were intended to inspire worship, it was often linked to political and social influence. I think the actual purpose is best left to the authors, if they can't or don't tell you your really just guessing.

"In the end, is it possible to achieve sort of a middle position between biblical literalism and complete skepticism, one that honors the source text without ignoring potential flaws, issues of transmission, etc.? And in terms of reaching a consensus view between Christians and atheists, is it possible to arrive at the most likely intended meaning of the text, whether or not one might agree with the text itself?"

Well that's true as far as it goes. A person can take an interest in the Scriptures just as literature, some of the writing is well crafted depending on your taste. The Psalms make interesting poetry and there are literary features like parallelisms that are distinctive. You can also gain insights into the cultures that produced them, their social norms, tools, musical instruments, building projects and things like that. I've always thought it was unfortunate that the Egyptians didn't write more, what we know about them has produced some profoundly important things. Euclidean math for instance came from the Egyptians but it had to be learned by a Greek named Thales. To date, it's the number two best selling work of nonfiction of all times, second only to the Bible.

Now, of course I’m not going to be asking Christians to look at the text and leave God out of the picture. Nevertheless, can we step back and be a little more objective about this issue for a moment?

No were not leaving him out of creation, we're being objective, he created figuratively. I'd suggest you give that some more thought. Anyway....you were saying...

Here are a few comparisons to consider:

Other ancient creation literature was never intended to be interpreted literally, although it almost always had literal elements. For instance, in the Epic of Gilgamesh, there really was a King Gilgamesh, but he never went in search of the fabled plant of life.

I disagree, while the legend of Gilgamesh is clearly a mythology there's no indication that the ancient Sumerians intended it to be read any other way then literal.

Creation literature was generally written to communicate a truth about the culture which produced it. For instance, one Babylonian creation myth described a titanic battle between Marduk and Tiamat, representing the forces of order vs. chaos. Another described how the gods created mankind as servants. This probably correlated with the taxation system, as people were responsible for paying specific tithes to the local temple as a payment to a particular god.

I'm not going to go into an elaborate exposition of their mythology but Tiamat wasn't a god, she was a pagan water elemental. Notice from the passage that no gods were manifest:

When the skies above were not yet named
Nor earth below pronounced by name,
Apsu, the first one, their begetter,
And maker Tiamat, who bore them all,
Had mixed their waters together,
But had not formed pastures, nor discovered reed-beds;
When yet no gods were manifest,
Nor names pronounced, nor destinies decreed,
Then gods were born within them.
Apsu and Tiamat are pagan elementals, they are water elementals.

The Babylonian Creation Story (Enuma elish)​

The biggest difference between Christian and Hebrew origins theology is that God created the elements, not the other way around.

Ancient creation literature was never meant to be interpreted to say that the people who wrote it were the only people alive at that time. The ancient Egyptians, for instance, had trade with Mesopotamia from the earliest times, going back to before the beginning of dynastic Egypt.

True enough, the Hykos kings were shepherds from the same area as the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The cultures intermixed somewhat.

Other ancient creation literature often identified a "place where creation occurred." This was a specific, geographical location. A real place, in other words. For instance, in one Egyptian creation myth, a mound of earth rose out of the primordial waters, and the Bennu bird landed on the ben-ben stone in the center of this mound. Suddenly there was light. This stone became the foundation stone of a temple – specifically, the temple of Heliopolis (the biblical On). This place is always a place important to the culture which produced the creation literature in question.

In other ancient literature in general, genealogies were extremely important, being the way that land ownership issues were decided (since land was typically inherited and passed down from generation to generation in a family). They were taken very seriously and not typically "made up". Granted, there are somewhat unusual examples of "genealogies" in both Egyptian literature and Mesopotamian literature, king lists with regnal periods in the thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years. Even so, these are most likely references to astronomical cycles and events rather than actual people. Both Egypt and Mesopotamia were highly concerned with astronomical and astrological observations.

Ok, That's kind of interesting.

So far, by looking at the biblical creation story in the same way, we'd get the following:

It was a mythological story designed to communicate something important about God’s relationship with man. Nevertheless, it contains elements of historical fact.

It's written as an historical narrative, no two ways about that.

Adam and Eve were not the first people.

That's not what you'll get from the Genesis account or the New Testament witness.

The biblical “place where creation occurred” is the Garden of Eden, which was a real place. It wasn’t in Iraq because that's where Mesopotamian creation literature would place it. It was in a place important to the author of the early chapters of Genesis.

Well yea, the creation of man occurred there.

The biblical genealogy coming down from Adam identifies Adam and Eve as real people. The long lifetimes could indicate a completely separate subspecies (as scientists are able to test and determine the likely lifespan of a person by analyzing remains, specifically bones, and the average lifespan of humans around 4000 – 3500 BC is about 35-40 years, not hundreds of years). They would have to be much less numerous than the rest of humanity. It could also indicate a pious inflation of lifespans, but I find that less likely since genealogies were generally not tampered with (at least, not at this point in history, although that did happen later when the Septuagint was translated).

The numbering system was less then reliable, it's hard to be sure.

And by the way, by delving even deeper we can determine almost exactly where the Garden of Eden was. Also, it turns out that Genesis 1-3 was written as a polemic against moral relativism. Meaning, they took the extant "creation literature" and, using the same literary style, deliberately turned it around to say something completely different from anything else at the time.

The description appears to put it in Mesopotamian, four rivers ran through it, speculation abounds.

What do you think? Is this a "reasonable" approach to interpreting the biblical Creation story? An approach that doesn't attack or invalidate God as God, while still attempting to reconcile it with the cultural context it came from, and with what we know from science today?

I'll tell you who does a lot of this kind of thing. Try Biologos, Francis Collins was the head of the human genome project, he's a brilliant scientist and a devout evangelical Christian. He is strictly opposed to taking the Genesis account of creation literally but as Theistic Evolutionists go he is quite the moderate.

I think you would enjoy their postings. If you decide to check it out let us know what you think.

Your view sounds a lot like Theistic Evolution. It's a Christian only forum but if you are just asking questions and politely inviting discussion, you are welcome here, at least as far as I'm concerned. Enjoy your time on Origins Theology and look forward to talking with you some more.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[damoncasale]

I added the numbers to your statement, as it seems you're giving two answers to my question about what is at stake. For #1, that is a noble goal as long as peace is not made at the expense of truth.

For #2, I wouldn't make the connection that this issue affects stewardship, but I'd be curious to know why you think it does.

Well, it was the article I read that made that connection. I'm not really sure if it's true or not. That is, if Christians would simply dismiss the responsibility of dealing with climate change simply because "Jesus is coming back."

I guess the reason origins would matter is then twofold. How do one's beliefs on origins color one's other beliefs (regarding stewardship, for instance). And, if a mistaken understanding of origins (or any other issue, for that matter) needlessly puts one at odds with another person or group (in this case, the scientific establishment), then would re-examining that belief help to build more trust in those who have differing beliefs or perspectives that they might be seekers of truth as well?

I guess I've just seen science poo-poohed too many times by those who claim to be Christian (including one particular parent) to think that a fundamentalist perspective is a healthy one. Especially if scientists are truth-seekers, too.

The same could be said regarding politics, health care, of what-have-you.

Damon

 

[Resha Caner]

I guess I've just seen science poo-poohed too many times by those who claim to be Christian (including one particular parent) to think that a fundamentalist perspective is a healthy one. Especially if scientists are truth-seekers, too.

That charge may be true in some cases, but often it is just an ad hominem. IMO the reason is more a misunderstanding of some fundamental assumptions than any true anti-science stance.

Many Christians do express a mysticism that makes me uncomfortable, but many atheists also express a naturalism that is equally untenable.

 

[damoncasale]

Many Christians do express a mysticism that makes me uncomfortable, but many atheists also express a naturalism that is equally untenable.

Good point. Sounds about as good a way to sum things up as any.

Damon

 

[miamited]

Hi damancasale,

I'm just a man, but I am a man who has studied God's Scriptures fairly diligently, so, for what that's worth, here's my take.

Yes, I have lived, and still do live, with people who believe differently than myself about the things of God. I did, in my early life, up until about 40 actually, believe in some evolutionary understanding of how Ted McFarland came to live upon the earth today. What changed? Well, for me, it was that I began to know and understand God, my Father. For many, many years I was just one of those go to church on Sunday folks who would check off on any questionnaire that I was a 'christian'. What changed? I fell on my knees crying out to God for wisdom and understanding by His Holy Spirit that I might know Him. One of my very first prayers, cried out from a yearning heart, was that God would give my an unquenchable thirst to know Him through His word and His Spirit.

From that day forth I was born again, born with the Spirit of the living God, and Ted's life began to change in many of the things that he had come to know and believe. One of the first bastions to fall was what I believed about the 'how I got here'. For about three years I could not hardly put the Scriptures down. I was praying for wisdom and understanding through God's Holy Spirit every time I sat down to read and study and my thoughts and understand changed drastically about who God is and who I am.

Yes, yes, in my younger days I told others and myself that I believed in Jesus; that he was the Son of God. But...

Just as one who studies to be an engineer coming out of college has the basics of engineering ingrained in his mind, as that person continues to work in his field his real working knowledge of engineering becomes deeper and even more ingrained. Similarly, when one graduates from the 'I've trusted Jesus as my Lord' school the knowledge and understanding of who his Father is, is just beginning.

Now, many try to tell me, "Well, that's just what you were taught and the way your were brought up." No! I have absolutely no memory of any preacher, before I began my 3 year journey of studying the Scriptures ever teaching anything about the creation. My family certainly never discussed it. I never had a friend who spoke to me about the creation event. I don't have any memory or knowledge of ever talking to anyone about the creation event in all of my life before beginning my studies in God's word. This 'new' me, as regards my understanding of what God has created in this realm, came about purely and simply from my time spent diligently and prayerfully seeking the wisdom and knowledge of God in these things.

So, yes, today, I am one of those who denies that scientists are able to explain the how and why that I walk upon the earth today, as regards the beginnings of this realm. I will say that when I gave my life over to the Lord and began this journey, I was impressed by a very early teaching from a Sunday series that my pastor was doing on what really is a miracle. What does it mean when we say that God performed a miracle. That was probably the beginning of my doubts about the scientific explanations that I had so long believed about how we got here.

Anyway, it's good to have you here and I pray that you will be blessed by your time here.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[damoncasale]

Hi Mark.

I'd say that makes you pretty normal, your aware of the revelation of God at some level (Rom. 1:18-20), you just don't know Him on a personal level.

You sure about that?

One of the first questions I had as a result of my parents' differences over religion was, who is God, really? So yeah...I've had my own personal experiences of God, too.

I disagree, while the legend of Gilgamesh is clearly a mythology there's no indication that the ancient Sumerians intended it to be read any other way then literal.

Just out of curiosity, can you recommend a source (online, book, etc.) which would demonstrate how we know that the ancient Sumerians (or Babylonians, or Egyptians) would have intended their creation literature to be read?

I'm leaving out later cultures like the Greeks and Romans as things started to change by then.

I'm not going to go into an elaborate exposition of their mythology but Tiamat wasn't a god, she was a pagan water elemental. Notice from the passage that no gods were manifest:

Interesting, although see below for comments about Genesis 1-3 as a polemic.

The biggest difference between Christian and Hebrew origins theology is that God created the elements, not the other way around.

Yep, big difference.

It's written as an historical narrative, no two ways about that.

Including Adam being shown other, ostensibly non-sentient living creatures, but no suitable mate being found for him among them? Including a talking snake?

I mean, I understand where you're getting that this would be historical, since the New Testament traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam, but I'm already acknowledging Adam as a real person so I'm not sure why it's important that the whole narrative of Genesis 1-3 be completely literal.

The numbering system was less then reliable, it's hard to be sure.

How was it less than reliable? Just curious what your source is for that.

The description appears to put it in Mesopotamian, four rivers ran through it, speculation abounds.

Imho, the four rivers are actually a symbol of people "flowing" in and out of the Garden of Eden, making it an important place where the message of a way that leads to life vs. moral relativism could have an impact on other peoples.

Are you familiar at all with the "chiasmus" as a literary structure?

I'll give you an example of a simple one from Genesis 6:22:

A - Thus did Noah
B - According to all that God commanded him
A' - So he did.

A' parallels A, and both are bracketing the central subject of importance, phrase B. This is an inverted chiasmus (A-B-A'). There are also structures like A-B-A'-B', A-B-B'-A', etc. I'm bringing this up because Genesis 1-3 is simply one long, very complex chiasmus, with dwelling with God on the Sabbath day as the central subject of importance. The creation of man in Gen. 1:26 parallels the creation of man in Gen. 2:7. Darkness in Gen. 1:2 parallels exile in Gen. 3:24.

I can provide a link for this, but apparently the system doesn't allow embedded links for members with post counts of under 50. But you can easily find an article on this, written from a Jewish perspective, by googling "two creation stories aishdas" and clicking on the first link.

One of the interesting parallels in that whole narrative is the creation of "great sea creatures" (Hebrew tannin) in Gen. 1:21 with the serpent in Gen. 3:1. What's unusual about that is that the Hebrew word bara, which is often interpreted to mean to create from nothing, is only used in reference to three things in this narrative: 1) the heavens and the earth, 2) man, and 3) the tannin or sea creatures. Like the serpent, they seem to be singled out for some reason.

Now, later in the bible, animals are often used to symbolize people or nations. In particular, the term tannin is applied to pharaoh king of Egypt in Ezekiel 32:2, in the immediate context of a reference to Eden in Ezekiel 31:9 & etc., also in reference to pharaoh. The term would probably best be translated as "crocodiles" there.

If we interpret the animals as people in Genesis 1-3, what does that get us?

#1, it would mean there were other people around before Adam and Eve, which fits with what science tells us about the age of man in general.
#2, it would make sense of the odd passage in Gen 2:18-20 about a suitable mate being sought for Adam among the "animals".
#3, it might identify some of the other peoples in existence at the time of the Garden of Eden.

If the tannin is a reference to Egypt, could the serpent be a reference to Sumer?

Could the Garden of Eden have simply been a rest stop on a major trade route between Egypt and Sumer?

Could the polemic against the serpent be a reference to the looser sexual practices of Sumer and later Babylon, which had temple prostitutes who performed their services as part of those peoples' form of worship?

I'll tell you who does a lot of this kind of thing. Try Biologos, Francis Collins was the head of the human genome project, he's a brilliant scientist and a devout evangelical Christian. He is strictly opposed to taking the Genesis account of creation literally but as Theistic Evolutionists go he is quite the moderate.

I think you would enjoy their postings. If you decide to check it out let us know what you think.

Yes, I'm familiar with Biologos. Posted there a couple of times a while back. Thanks for the reference, though.

Your view sounds a lot like Theistic Evolution. It's a Christian only forum but if you are just asking questions and politely inviting discussion, you are welcome here, at least as far as I'm concerned. Enjoy your time on Origins Theology and look forward to talking with you some more.

Perhaps. I've not really thought a lot about what happened before Adam. I don't entirely agree with evolution either, but because that's not my expertise, I'd rather avoid trying to debate it.

Thanks for the warm welcome, though.

Damon

 

[seeingeyes]

Now, of course I’m not going to be asking Christians to look at the text and leave God out of the picture. Nevertheless, can we step back and be a little more objective about this issue for a moment?

Nope.

There's no particular reason to believe in a 6-day creation if you "leave God out of it". (And it's not necessary to believe in a 6-day creation even if you leave God in it.)

Jesus is far, far more important to know than when or how the world began. If you are looking to test your beliefs, start with him. He is the stumbling block and he is the foundation, not some variation on creation.

What do you think? Is this a "reasonable" approach to interpreting the biblical Creation story? An approach that doesn't attack or invalidate God as God, while still attempting to reconcile it with the cultural context it came from, and with what we know from science today?

Damon

I think it's good to examine the culture/context that the scriptures were written in. Jesus always spoke to the audience in front of him, I see no reason that that shouldn't be the case for the scriptures as well.

God bless

 

[mark kennedy]

You sure about that?

One of the first questions I had as a result of my parents' differences over religion was, who is God, really? So yeah...I've had my own personal experiences of God, too.

I'm pretty sure, it's called natural revelation. There's an old expression used different ways but it goes there is one love of God separated only by our experiences. God seems more distant then he really is, if you want to know what God is really like you have to know him personally.

Just out of curiosity, can you recommend a source (online, book, etc.) which would demonstrate how we know that the ancient Sumerians (or Babylonians, or Egyptians) would have intended their creation literature to be read?

It's been a good long while and I dropped those books off at Goodwill years ago. My best advice is to simply read what they wrote. That may be an unsophisticated approach but I think it's the most reliable.

I'm leaving out later cultures like the Greeks and Romans as things started to change by then.

Perhaps not as much as you think.

Interesting, although see below for comments about Genesis 1-3 as a polemic.

It can be, if essential doctrine is involved it will be.

Yep, big difference.

That's why they call it 'Origins' Theology.

Including Adam being shown other, ostensibly non-sentient living creatures, but no suitable mate being found for him among them? Including a talking snake?

That's 'Serpent', it's really more of a proper name. It's used again in the Revelation for Satan.

I mean, I understand where you're getting that this would be historical, since the New Testament traces Jesus' genealogy back to Adam, but I'm already acknowledging Adam as a real person so I'm not sure why it's important that the whole narrative of Genesis 1-3 be completely literal.

Because it's written as an historical narrative and Creation is essential doctrine. Now, mind you, a lot of others believe a figurative interpretation is the proper way to understand it but as written, it's literal.

How was it less than reliable? Just curious what your source is for that.

It's based on a lunar calendar for one and letters are substituted for numerals since they really had no numbering system per se. The genealogies have came out differently for different translations down through the centuries. The way it's translated now is probably as close as you can get.

Imho, the four rivers are actually a symbol of people "flowing" in and out of the Garden of Eden, making it an important place where the message of a way that leads to life vs. moral relativism could have an impact on other peoples.

Well your free to allegoricalize as you please but the Tigris and the Euphrates are obviously two of them, the other two are not so certain.

Are you familiar at all with the "chiasmus" as a literary structure?

No, tell me about it.

I'll give you an example of a simple one from Genesis 6:22:

A - Thus did Noah
B - According to all that God commanded him
A' - So he did.

A' parallels A, and both are bracketing the central subject of importance, phrase B. This is an inverted chiasmus (A-B-A'). There are also structures like A-B-A'-B', A-B-B'-A', etc. I'm bringing this up because Genesis 1-3 is simply one long, very complex chiasmus, with dwelling with God on the Sabbath day as the central subject of importance. The creation of man in Gen. 1:26 parallels the creation of man in Gen. 2:7. Darkness in Gen. 1:2 parallels exile in Gen. 3:24.

What you are describing sounds a lot like parallelisms.

I can provide a link for this, but apparently the system doesn't allow embedded links for members with post counts of under 50. But you can easily find an article on this, written from a Jewish perspective, by googling "two creation stories aishdas" and clicking on the first link.

I'm familiar with it, I don't happen to agree that there are two creation accounts.

One of the interesting parallels in that whole narrative is the creation of "great sea creatures" (Hebrew tannin) in Gen. 1:21 with the serpent in Gen. 3:1. What's unusual about that is that the Hebrew word bara, which is often interpreted to mean to create from nothing, is only used in reference to three things in this narrative: 1) the heavens and the earth, 2) man, and 3) the tannin or sea creatures. Like the serpent, they seem to be singled out for some reason.

Lexicons and Concordances are helpful with words like that:

Strong's H8577 - tanniyn
Strong's H1254 - bara'
​

Now, later in the bible, animals are often used to symbolize people or nations. In particular, the term tannin is applied to pharaoh king of Egypt in Ezekiel 32:2, in the immediate context of a reference to Eden in Ezekiel 31:9 & etc., also in reference to pharaoh. The term would probably best be translated as "crocodiles" there.

In Jobs use of Leviathan, it's described as a fire breathing dragon. It's pretty sure that it's a dramatic figure of speech.

His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. (Job 41 15-21)​

If we interpret the animals as people in Genesis 1-3, what does that get us?

#1, it would mean there were other people around before Adam and Eve, which fits with what science tells us about the age of man in general.
#2, it would make sense of the odd passage in Gen 2:18-20 about a suitable mate being sought for Adam among the "animals".
#3, it might identify some of the other peoples in existence at the time of the Garden of Eden.

Sorry, that is a giant leap, actually a non sequitor argument. For one thing 'bara' is used of the original creation (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:27). Adam being created 'bara' is used three times which makes it a parallelism, a literary device used to highlight that empathizes through repetition. Your right about one thing, 'bara' is a new creation, ex nihileo or from nothing.

Keep reading, your making some progress.

If the tannin is a reference to Egypt, could the serpent be a reference to Sumer?

It's known as the Leviathan, it's used symbolically sometimes and sometimes it's just a massive sea creature like a crocodile or whale or something like that. It's from the Ugaritic, the Hebrews kind of adapted it for their language. It can be a sea monster, a fire breathing dragon or Pharaoh, it all depends on the context.

Leviathan

Could the Garden of Eden have simply been a rest stop on a major trade route between Egypt and Sumer?

It is to this day, there's no indication of figurative language in Genesis 1 if that's what your getting at.

Could the polemic against the serpent be a reference to the looser sexual practices of Sumer and later Babylon, which had temple prostitutes who performed their services as part of those peoples' form of worship?

It can be anything you want if you just want to make it figurative unconditionally.

Yes, I'm familiar with Biologos. Posted there a couple of times a while back. Thanks for the reference, though.

It makes me want to break out in hives but I'm a creationist. Honestly it's by far the best Theistic Evolution website out there.

Perhaps. I've not really thought a lot about what happened before Adam. I don't entirely agree with evolution either, but because that's not my expertise, I'd rather avoid trying to debate it.

Thanks for the warm welcome, though.

Damon

Well you seem like a good natured guy, I hope you find what your looking for. Watch yourself though, Creation is essential doctrine so approach the subject cautiously. Suggesting that an alternative reading might be interesting isn't going to send up any red flags. If you start arguing that is the only or the best way to understand it you can offend an evangelical or fundamentalist pretty easily. Use your best judgement on that account.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[damoncasale]

I get the feeling that this is a bit of a sensitive topic for you. Especially the last part of your response where you mentioned Creation as an "essential doctrine." I think I understand what you mean, and no, I don't intend to argue that this is the "only" way to view things. Although, imho, it does have the advantage of coming from the perspective of interpreting the Creation account according to its cultural context, something I've not seen done before.

My mother feels much the same way you do. But again, I went to college and she didn't. It's really difficult to express how mind-expanding college is, and I can't just throw away what I've learned and accept the Creation account as literal. There's just too much of a gap between the two to allow for that, imho. It would be like saying, I have to love one parent (a literal view of the bible) by completely disavowing the other (science, what I learned in college).

I understand that there are some Christians that are comfortable with tossing science completely under the bus in favor of literally interpreting the bible. Then there are others who prefer a more nuanced approach of looking for scientific support for their beliefs. I just can't bring myself to go either place.

At least we understand where each other is, and that's fine. I'll just wrap up a few additional replies below.

That's 'Serpent', it's really more of a proper name. It's used again in the Revelation for Satan.

When I was living in California several years ago, I took an Intro to Judaism class out of curiosity, because I wanted to understand more of the cultural context of the bible. I was very surprised to learn that "Satan" in the Old Testament has a very different meaning from "Satan" in the new. One of the things I learned was that "Satan" was a judicial term. We have a prosecuting attorney and a defense attorney today, and the Old Testament term "Satan" would have been the equivalent of the prosecuting attorney. That was reinterpreted in the New Testament to refer to a particular spiritual entity. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't believe in "Satan the Devil." But I think that attempting to equate the Serpent in Genesis 3 to Satan is a historical anachronism.

A lot of times in the New Testament, we find it *re*interpreting particular Old Testament passages and explaining them in a completely different way than they were originally intended. I don't claim that to be wrong at all, but I *am* claiming that we should clearly differentiate between the original Old Testament meaning of something and its New Testament reinterpretation.

Because it's written as an historical narrative and Creation is essential doctrine. Now, mind you, a lot of others believe a figurative interpretation is the proper way to understand it but as written, it's literal.

How do we know it's literal? I keep trying to understand where that's coming from. I know that Hebrew often uses certain literary turns of phrase to indicate poetry (for instance, repeated phrases of similar character), which we don't see here. I don't see it as poetic. But I'm unsure how you mean that it has to be literal.

Don't feel like you need to continue the conversation just to prove this. If you want to just give a reference and let the subject drop, that'd be great.

Well your free to allegoricalize as you please but the Tigris and the Euphrates are obviously two of them, the other two are not so certain.

Yes, two of them are the Tigris and Euphrates. The other two are likely the Jordan and the Nile. (There are natives of Ethiopia which, to this day, call the Nile River the 'Gihon'.) No, they don't join up, but that's precisely why I think this was an allegory.

I'm familiar with it, I don't happen to agree that there are two creation accounts.

There aren't. The point of the article was to show that they're a unified text, so I guess you didn't look at it. This was part of why I got the impression that this is a sensitive topic for you.

In Jobs use of Leviathan, it's described as a fire breathing dragon. It's pretty sure that it's a dramatic figure of speech.

Yes, what's curious about the book of Job is that, while there are only a very few chronological indicators (one of which is the use of the term 'Sabeans' in Job 1:15), the book seems to focus on a concept -- e.g., why would God punish a righteous man -- that doesn't really fit well with any biblical time period EXCEPT right before the Babylonian exile, when people would've been questioning why God would allow a conquering nation to take away into captivity the righteous along with the sinners. So it's interesting that the latter part of Job makes reference to two mythological monsters, the Leviathan and the Behemoth, that seem to parallel the two most powerful nations at the time. Egypt and Babylon. Since Leviathan is described as the more fearsome one, then perhaps the book was simply an allegorical reference to Egypt being the one with the upper hand at the time the book was written.

Sorry, that is a giant leap, actually a non sequitor argument. For one thing 'bara' is used of the original creation (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:27). Adam being created 'bara' is used three times which makes it a parallelism, a literary device used to highlight that empathizes through repetition. Your right about one thing, 'bara' is a new creation, ex nihileo or from nothing.

Well, what I was pointing out is that before the phrase "every living creature that moves", the Hebrew word bara is more closely connected with tannin.

"So God created (bara) the great creatures of the sea (tannin) and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Anyway, I guess we have some irreconcilable differences, and that's fine. I'm simply sharing why, from my own personal experience, a literal view of Genesis 1-3 doesn't work for me.

God bless.

Damon

 

[mark kennedy]

I get the feeling that this is a bit of a sensitive topic for you. Especially the last part of your response where you mentioned Creation as an "essential doctrine." I think I understand what you mean, and no, I don't intend to argue that this is the "only" way to view things. Although, imho, it does have the advantage of coming from the perspective of interpreting the Creation account according to its cultural context, something I've not seen done before.

You might want to consider the context the Pentateuch was written in, the Levites had a culture and there is a history attached.

My mother feels much the same way you do. But again, I went to college and she didn't. It's really difficult to express how mind-expanding college is, and I can't just throw away what I've learned and accept the Creation account as literal. There's just too much of a gap between the two to allow for that, imho. It would be like saying, I have to love one parent (a literal view of the bible) by completely disavowing the other (science, what I learned in college).

There is no conflict between science and creation, a literal genesis and a broad spectrum of study. I would suggest one thing though, take it for whats it worth and leave it alone. Let me show you why:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,​

Nicene Creed

That, btw, is the general guide CF uses to determine whether someone is a Christian for not, that's what Christians believe. God is Creator, Christ is God incarnate, to receive Christ as Savior is to worship Him as Creator. I just want you to understand what I mean about Creation being essential doctrine.

I understand that there are some Christians that are comfortable with tossing science completely under the bus in favor of literally interpreting the bible. Then there are others who prefer a more nuanced approach of looking for scientific support for their beliefs. I just can't bring myself to go either place.

Frankly, no they don't 'toss science', Creationism is an exercise in Evidential Apologetics not because they are opposed to science but because they want to defend the historicity of their worldview. It's not opposed to science or evolutionary biology, the problem is Darwinism and that's what we bang heads over in here.

Now that's not meant to be a rebuke, I consider you a guest here and there's always room for honest inquiries. I just want you to understand that Creationists never argue against Mendelian Genetics or molecular biology. I've never heard one demonize laboratory science or a systematic investigation of natural phenomenon through direct observation or demonstration. The issues are intellectual, philosophical and they are Theological but they are never aimed at a rejection of the genuine article of science. Any more then a scientist is opposed to redemptive history as an article of Christian faith.

At least we understand where each other is, and that's fine. I'll just wrap up a few additional replies below.

Sounds good.

When I was living in California several years ago, I took an Intro to Judaism class out of curiosity, because I wanted to understand more of the cultural context of the bible. I was very surprised to learn that "Satan" in the Old Testament has a very different meaning from "Satan" in the new. One of the things I learned was that "Satan" was a judicial term. We have a prosecuting attorney and a defense attorney today, and the Old Testament term "Satan" would have been the equivalent of the prosecuting attorney. That was reinterpreted in the New Testament to refer to a particular spiritual entity. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't believe in "Satan the Devil." But I think that attempting to equate the Serpent in Genesis 3 to Satan is a historical anachronism.

And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. (Rev. 20:2)​

What you call an anachronism I call hermeneutics.

A lot of times in the New Testament, we find it *re*interpreting particular Old Testament passages and explaining them in a completely different way than they were originally intended. I don't claim that to be wrong at all, but I *am* claiming that we should clearly differentiate between the original Old Testament meaning of something and its New Testament reinterpretation.

That's true but I wouldn't call it reinterpretation, it's more like a fuller revelation:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; (Hebrews 1:1,2)
​

How do we know it's literal? I keep trying to understand where that's coming from. I know that Hebrew often uses certain literary turns of phrase to indicate poetry (for instance, repeated phrases of similar character), which we don't see here. I don't see it as poetic. But I'm unsure how you mean that it has to be literal.

Genesis derives it's name from the Genealogies, means something like generations. The entire book is a history starting with creation and continuing through the lives of Abraham, Isaac Jacob and the Patriarchs. It's a covenant history focused especially on the birth of Israel. One the other ways 'bara' is used elsewhere is in describing Israel as God's creation using 'bara', Isaiah does this repeatedly. Creation occupies one chapter, the history of the nation of Israel covers 38 and the next five books focus on Israel growth and development exclusively.

I see no sensible way of dismissing this as anything other then an historical narrative. That is, at least, the intention of the original writer.

Don't feel like you need to continue the conversation just to prove this. If you want to just give a reference and let the subject drop, that'd be great.

I can discuss it more in depth but I regard the Scriptures as primary source documents for reasons we may or may not discuss later.

Yes, two of them are the Tigris and Euphrates. The other two are likely the Jordan and the Nile. (There are natives of Ethiopia which, to this day, call the Nile River the 'Gihon'.) No, they don't join up, but that's precisely why I think this was an allegory.

They may have at one time and there's no real wiggle room for an allegory there. Don't get me wrong, there have been Christian and Jewish scholars who have tried with varying measures of success to reconcile a figurative interpretation with the overall content. It's a minority view historically and a marginal one in contemporary scholarship but a viable one, if it's properly organized and defended.

There aren't. The point of the article was to show that they're a unified text, so I guess you didn't look at it. This was part of why I got the impression that this is a sensitive topic for you.

Don't let that throw you, my interest in the subject matter is Apologetics. I had a lot of questions when I became a Christian and developed a fascination with the credibility and authenticity of Scripture.

Yes, what's curious about the book of Job is that, while there are only a very few chronological indicators (one of which is the use of the term 'Sabeans' in Job 1:15), the book seems to focus on a concept -- e.g., why would God punish a righteous man -- that doesn't really fit well with any biblical time period EXCEPT right before the Babylonian exile, when people would've been questioning why God would allow a conquering nation to take away into captivity the righteous along with the sinners. So it's interesting that the latter part of Job makes reference to two mythological monsters, the Leviathan and the Behemoth, that seem to parallel the two most powerful nations at the time. Egypt and Babylon. Since Leviathan is described as the more fearsome one, then perhaps the book was simply an allegorical reference to Egypt being the one with the upper hand at the time the book was written.

It's not a symbol of a nation or a person, it's a description of an enormously powerful beast, some say it's an apt description of God. Try wrapping your mind around that one . Job had mentioned rousing the Leviathan which is the idea of a curse. When God is chastising Job he is saying, do you think your going to be able to tame this wild, enormously powerful beast and make it a pet for your children. You would remember the experience for a very long time and you would never do it again. When the Leviathan is mentioned in Isaiah is expressly says it's a description of Pharaoh, that doesn't mean the Leviathan must always represent a person or a nation.

You have to watch the context and let it guide you through the description.

Well, what I was pointing out is that before the phrase "every living creature that moves", the Hebrew word bara is more closely connected with tannin.

That is because the word is being used of living creature of that type, along with other living creatures that were created 'bara'.

"So God created (bara) the great creatures of the sea (tannin) and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good."

Anyway, I guess we have some irreconcilable differences, and that's fine. I'm simply sharing why, from my own personal experience, a literal view of Genesis 1-3 doesn't work for me.

God bless.

Damon

Well again, enjoy your visit and I hope you learn a few things while your here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[damoncasale]

Okay, just a few things. Not to keep this going, but to explain some things that didn't come out yet in our discussion so far.

There is no conflict between science and creation, a literal genesis and a broad spectrum of study. I would suggest one thing though, take it for whats it worth and leave it alone. Let me show you why:

My dad is Catholic (and has great respect for the Nicene Creed). My mother was a member of the Worldwide Church of God, which was absolutely the antithesis of everything Catholic. She's now a member of one of the offshoots. One of the questions I grew up with was, which is it? Scripture plus church authority (including creeds) or Scripture alone? I came to the conclusion that both approaches had their flaws. On the one hand, in studying something completely unrelated in the bible I came up with what my dad claimed was "the best explanation of Purgatory I've ever heard". (Yes, I actually got that *from the bible*.) On the other hand, one of the flaws in the "church authority" passed down through the Catholic church that I found was the rejection of the Desposyni (blood relatives of Christ) as having any authority whatsoever.

My take on it was that there was actually supposed to be a bicameral power structure, with the Jerusalem Council (originally headed by James) being in authority right along with Peter and his successors.

That didn't last past the Bar Kochba revolt. Sooo...yeah. Creeds don't work for me, either. I just stick with personal study and prayer for now.

Frankly, no they don't 'toss science', Creationism is an exercise in Evidential Apologetics not because they are opposed to science but because they want to defend the historicity of their worldview. It's not opposed to science or evolutionary biology, the problem is Darwinism and that's what we bang heads over in here.

Now that's not meant to be a rebuke, I consider you a guest here and there's always room for honest inquiries. I just want you to understand that Creationists never argue against Mendelian Genetics or molecular biology. I've never heard one demonize laboratory science or a systematic investigation of natural phenomenon through direct observation or demonstration. The issues are intellectual, philosophical and they are Theological but they are never aimed at a rejection of the genuine article of science. Any more then a scientist is opposed to redemptive history as an article of Christian faith.

And the issue I have with that is that it makes science a slave to one particular way of reading the bible, rather than setting them on equal footing and trying to strike a balance. (I've had this discussion with my mother many times.)

For years, I believed in a literal reading of Genesis 1-3. And the more I studied history and prehistory, the more I realized it couldn't be literal. There were simply too many generations of man to fit in between now and the Flood, or between now and Adam.

I've studied Egyptian chronology extensively, and although I did see evidence for somewhat overlapping parts of the conventional chronology -- for instance, the 21st and 22nd dynasties of ancient Egypt actually overlapped by about 150 years, rather than being consecutive -- what I found was that not only was there no evidence of a Flood to interrupt their history, either written or in the geological record, the people who settled in Egypt originally migrated from somewhere else. Specifically, the area of Nabta Playa, which they vistited nomadically for several thousand years before settling down for about a thousand, after which they migrated into Egypt. Before that, they lived in northeast Africa, where pottery (!) was discovered dating back to about 7000 to 8000 BCE, with much of the same motifs that we find later in predynastic and dynastic Egypt.

After researching that, I spent time studying various methods of scientific dating. Carbon-14, etc., etc. What I learned there was that, although they could be off by a certain amount, they weren't likely to be off by an order of magnitude. Also, since objects could be dated using multiple methods *that all generally agreed with each other*, the chance of all of those methods giving a false result became vanishingly small.

I also studied climate change and how it affected migrations during man's prehistory. But I digress.

Anyway, so I was left with a history and prehistory of man that goes back at least 10,000 years. But, I also determined that there are unlikely to be any generational gaps in the genealogies in Genesis. Which means...man was around before Adam and Eve.

And so I was forced, by what I studied, to confront the possibility of a non-literal Genesis.

Interestingly, what I also found was that during the translation of the Septuagint, the writers added 100 years to the ages of each of the patriarchs when their sons were born. The most likely explanation is that they had studied the history of Egypt while there in Alexandria and decided that, in order to protect the doctrine of a literal Flood, they had to "piously" alter the text.

Basically, they couldn't let history speak for itself, or consider the possibility of a non-literal Creation account. By then, the culture had changed enough so that they didn't realize Genesis wasn't literal.

I see no sensible way of dismissing this as anything other then an historical narrative. That is, at least, the intention of the original writer.

Have you ever heard of the tablet theory of Genesis authorship? The claim that originally, the text of most of Genesis was written on tablets which were colophoned by a phrase like "These are the generations of X."?

That would mean that Genesis was actually written well before the time of Moses, by the people who lived it, and that while later parts of Genesis can be very clearly in the historical narrative genre, the literary genre of earlier parts may not be?

Feel free to continue or not. Pretty much everything I wrote above was just explanation of where I'm coming from, and my own personal experience. Your personal experience has been quite different, so we've arrived in different places in our journey. Your avid interest in the credibility and authenticity of Scripture is laudable, I'm just coming at things from a completely different angle.

Damon

 

[Papias]

Hi Damon, and welcome!

Here are some of my thoughts for discussion.

You wrote:

So far, by looking at the biblical creation story in the same way, we'd get the following:

1. It was a mythological story designed to communicate something important about God’s relationship with man. Nevertheless, it contains elements of historical fact.

Yep, I agree.

2. Adam and Eve were not the first people.

It depends on what you mean by "people". If you say "humans" or "Homo sapiens sapiens", then we have to decide what criteria we are using to grant membership there. Depending on what that is, one may or may not consider Adam and Eve the "first people".

3. The biblical “place where creation occurred” is the Garden of Eden, which was a real place. It wasn’t in Iraq because that's where Mesopotamian creation literature would place it. It was in a place important to the author of the early chapters of Genesis.

maybe. I guess I don't understand exactly what you are proposing. If creation was the long process of evolution, it would be hard to put it in one small place. If it is just of humans, then you could do so - except that's actually not what Gen 2 says. Looking to scripture, Gen 2 (Eden is only in Gen 2, not Gen 1), doesn't say that the creation happens in Eden, only that man is put there *after* he is created, and it also doesn't say that the animals are made there, nor does it say how big Eden is.

4. The biblical genealogy coming down from Adam identifies Adam and Eve as real people. The long lifetimes could indicate a completely separate subspecies (as scientists are able to test and determine the likely lifespan of a person by analyzing remains, specifically bones, and the average lifespan of humans around 4000 – 3500 BC is about 35-40 years, not hundreds of years). They would have to be much less numerous than the rest of humanity. It could also indicate a pious inflation of lifespans, but I find that less likely since genealogies were generally not tampered with (at least, not at this point in history, although that did happen later when the Septuagint was translated).

but the Genealogies do appear to be "tampered with" when a point is being made. For instance, the time in Egypt is centuries long, but covered by only three names in the Cr. genealogy (so maybe names were omitted?), and then there's where Mt took names out of his genealogy, which you probably aware of:



Mt Gen# .................Gospel of Matthew has............... 1st Chron. Has:
1..............................Solomon the father of Rehoboam, ...Solomon's son was
2 .............................Rehoboam the father of Abijah,...... Rehoboam,
3 .............................Abijah ...........................................Abijah his son,
4..............................Asa ..............................................Asa his son,
5 .............................Jehoshaphat .................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6............................. Jehoram ......................................Jehoram his son
................................Skipped..................................... Ahaziah his son,

................................Skipped .....................................Joash his son,
................................Skipped .....................................Amaziah his son,
7......................Uzziah the father of Jotham, ................Azariah his son,
8............................ Jotham ........................................Jotham his son,
9 ............................Ahaz ...........................................Ahaz his son,
10...........................Hezekiah ....................................Hezekiah his son,
11.......................... Manasseh ...................................Manasseh his son,
12 ..........................Amon .........................................Amon his son,
13.......................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah, .......Josiah his son.

And by the way, by delving even deeper we can determine almost exactly where the Garden of Eden was. Also, it turns out that Genesis 1-3 was written as a polemic against moral relativism. Meaning, they took the extant "creation literature" and, using the same literary style, deliberately turned it around to say something completely different from anything else at the time.

Yes. That's an important point that is often not known. You are clearly very well informed (based on all your posts on this thread).

What do you think? Is this a "reasonable" approach to interpreting the biblical Creation story? An approach that doesn't attack or invalidate God as God, while still attempting to reconcile it with the cultural context it came from, and with what we know from science today?

Overall, I think it probably is a reasonable approach, to the extent that I understand it so far. Interesting!

In Christ-

Papias

 

[damoncasale]

Hi Damon, and welcome!

Hi there!

It depends on what you mean by "people". If you say "humans" or "Homo sapiens sapiens", then we have to decide what criteria we are using to grant membership there. Depending on what that is, one may or may not consider Adam and Eve the "first people".

I honestly don't know. It may be that Adam and Eve were a different subspecies (hence the longer lives in the genealogies). Maybe not. I'm not an expert in human evolution. It does seem that they were singled out (at least according to the text) for a special purpose, though, and that could have implications anywhere from different genetics to simple "chosen"-ness, like Israel was chosen.

I'm certainly open to different possibilities in the areas where I don't know a lot and am not an expert. For me, it's easier to reserve judgment on something than to say definitively one way or the other.

maybe. I guess I don't understand exactly what you are proposing. If creation was the long process of evolution, it would be hard to put it in one small place. If it is just of humans, then you could do so - except that's actually not what Gen 2 says. Looking to scripture, Gen 2 (Eden is only in Gen 2, not Gen 1), doesn't say that the creation happens in Eden, only that man is put there *after* he is created, and it also doesn't say that the animals are made there, nor does it say how big Eden is.

Well, there was a *land* of Eden, and then there was the garden *in* Eden. They're two different things. The garden would be comparable to the "place where creation occurred" in other ancient near eastern creation literature. It's like saying, New York City is the capital of New York state. The Garden of Eden would be like the "capital" of the land of Eden.

What do you think? Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation of the text, there?

To clarify what this has to do with creation, the term "place where creation occurred" in other creation literature has more to do with placing some spiritual special importance on a place than some actual evolutionary process happening there. The Egyptian creation myth which describes the origin of the temple at Heliopolis was just making a statement about how spiritually special and distinct Heliopolis was, for instance.

As far as evolution goes, I'm not proposing anything. I'm deliberately shying away from dealing with the subject of evolution at all, only to say that, as far as I can see, the bible doesn't tell us how man got here in the first place.

but the Genealogies do appear to be "tampered with" when a point is being made. For instance, the time in Egypt is centuries long, but covered by only three names in the Cr. genealogy (so maybe names were omitted?), and then there's where Mt took names out of his genealogy, which you probably aware of:

Yes, I'm aware of genealogies being "tampered with" (although in some cases they may have simply been standardizing them for ease of memorization, e.g., the 14 generations motif in Matthew 1). That's not quite what I meant.

There are apparently secular genealogies going back to Noah or one of his sons, which don't seem to support long gaps in the biblical genealogy going back to Noah.

I would post a link, but the system here doesn't let me link to anything with less than 50 posts. However, you can go to ldolphin dot org, click on Library, and search for "after the flood" on the page. It's most of the way down. Click on that link, click on the table of contents link, then look through the appendices for the secular genealogies.

So, if Noah lived around roughly 2350 BC, then the Flood, whatever it was (since I can't find evidence for an actual global flood), happened within the recent past. In other words, it wasn't the Black Sea flood in 8700 BCE or whatever else biblical scholars have hypothesized. Noah was definitely a real person, but for now, I don't know what to do with the Flood story.

In any case, if the genealogies going back to Noah don't have long gaps, then the great likelihood is that the ones going back from Noah to Adam don't, either.

Overall, I think it probably is a reasonable approach, to the extent that I understand it so far. Interesting!

Thank you.

Damon

 

[Papias]

Damon wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

It depends on what you mean by "people". ..... Depending on what that is, one may or may not consider Adam and Eve the "first people".

I honestly don't know. It may be that Adam and Eve were a different subspecies (hence the longer lives in the genealogies). Maybe not. .....I'm certainly open to different possibilities in the areas where I don't know a lot and am not an expert. For me, it's easier to reserve judgment on something than to say definitively one way or the other.

I agree. I can't be sure and it's not a salvation issue anyway.

If you are interested, here is another position.

One common TE position (and the one I hold, along with literally millions of others, including whole churches) is that there WAS a literal, first person, Adam. He was a member of a community, and was the first person in the ape to human gradual change. After all, there had to be a first, if there weren't humans 5 million years ago, and there are humans today – he was the first to whom God divinely gave a soul. Understanding how populations interbreed makes it obvious that all humans today are descended from him. Original sin did enter the human race though him, because he was the first to be divinely given a soul by God, and perhaps to be developed to the point of being able to conceptualize God, and hence to be able to rebel against God. The idea of Adam as a real, single, historical person, who brought about original sin, and who is the literal ancestor of all humans alive today, is fully compatible with modern science, and an important part, for some, of theistic evolution.

Remember that there is variation, and that mutations are in individuals before they spread to the rest of the tribe. So as the whole community gradually evolves from ape to human, whatever arbitrary characteristic is used to define "being human", one individual will be the first to cross that line – including a line of “God divinely creating a soul” in one. Of course, all humans will be descended from him, just as they are all descended from others as well. The same holds true for any individual, so long as they have a few kids. Thus, if you have a few kids, it is very likely that in a few thousand years, literally everyone on earth will be descended from you as well. It's all a mix.

Well, there was a *land* of Eden, and then there was the garden *in* Eden. They're two different things. The garden would be comparable to the "place where creation occurred" in other ancient near eastern creation literature. It's like saying, New York City is the capital of New York state. The Garden of Eden would be like the "capital" of the land of Eden.

What do you think? Does that sound like a reasonable interpretation of the text, there?

Sure, except that it sounds like some of the creating happens in Eden, and some happens outside of Eden (if we think that's an intended detail). Here's the text from Gen 2:

And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden...
​

To clarify what this has to do with creation, the term "place where creation occurred" in other creation literature has more to do with placing some spiritual special importance on a place than some actual evolutionary process happening there. The Egyptian creation myth which describes the origin of the temple at Heliopolis was just making a statement about how spiritually special and distinct Heliopolis was, for instance.

As far as evolution goes, I'm not proposing anything.

Right, so maybe the mention of Eden as a location is spiritually, but not geographically, significant. If that's the case, then the evolution and so on doesn't matter.

There are apparently secular genealogies going back to Noah or one of his sons, which don't seem to support long gaps in the biblical genealogy going back to Noah.

Looking at that, he's basing it all on the writings of a 9th century monk (Nennius) writing literally thousands of years after the fact. Nennius' stories includes the legends of King Arthur and other similar stuff. Historians consider Nennius' work to be "historical fiction", so I'd take any genealogy in there with a grain of salt, if that. I'd also be careful because the author of that book has no relevant historical credentials - the book seems to me to be most useful for popular entertainment, not history.

Or were you referring to other information?

In any case, if the genealogies going back to Noah don't have long gaps, then the great likelihood is that the ones going back from Noah to Adam don't, either.

If the Cooper ones are suspect at best, and the "Adam to Noah" line could be symbolic, then it might not tell us much about when to place an historical Adam. Are you referring to a non-biblical source for a genealogy with Adam?


​

Good discussion.

-Equinox