• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Are the narratives of Genesis a true revelation of God's works to Moses to correct other writings?

Discussion in 'Creation & Theistic Evolution' started by fishmansf, Jul 8, 2019.

  1. fishmansf

    fishmansf New Member

    29
    +9
    United States
    Lutheran
    Single
    I am aware that there are many texts about a creation narrative from long before the OT was written (mainly written by Sumerians) about the creation, the flood, etc. My question is, were these a perversion of the true creation narrative of God and God revealed the true creation narrative and the history following it (Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham) to which God revealed the TRUTH to Moses? What are your opinions on this matter?
    Personal belief: I believe that the creation narrative of the ancient Sumerians were somewhat true but completely perverted by Satan and in order to correct their error, God gave the pure form of what ACTUALLY happened to Moses in order to write down what happened from the "Beginning" up to Moses' time.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Tolworth John

    Tolworth John Well-Known Member

    +1,963
    United Kingdom
    Non-Denom
    Married
    As God created he will also have gived the correct account of creation.
     
  3. Gracia Singh

    Gracia Singh Newbie Supporter

    +6,127
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I think that over time, ancient history got a bit muddled. Details were forgotten, other stuff added. But, in many places, decent amounts of the basic facts were still there.

    Moses was God's way of giving back to humanity the true story of how He created us.
     
  4. eleos1954

    eleos1954 God is Love Supporter

    +1,543
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
     
  5. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +698
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    I believe that the five books are inspired narratives but not literal in the sense that the stories occurred word for word.
     
  6. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,058
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    For any large event affecting a wide region (earthquake, famine, unusually cold freezes, and more) it makes sense there would be multiple versions about it much later in time, as various individuals and groups recorded their own version and passed it down. And this could apply with the Genesis chapter 6 flood if it were the case it was regional (which the text doesn't necessarily rule out, as "under the whole heaven" might possibly mean to all known lands or even simply as far as the surviving eyes could see visually over time (no land in sight)). But this doesn't seem likely to apply also to creation itself (unless many received visions). Genesis chapter 1 does read just like a vision, which is a normal way by which God chooses to communicate (perhaps so that we still have to have faith instead of merely knowledge) we see in 1 Sam 3:1, and like the vision in Acts 10 to Peter, it has only a small amount of actual narration from God (just the words in quotation marks it seems), just barely enough to result later on for the essential (key) message to later be understood, but not more than that. Not extra details that are superfluous to the main message. (read with real listening, and notice what is repeated over and over, 7 times, about the home God has made for us) Visions are generally stylistic, with reality represented by representative stylized pictures, like in a dream. So the days seen in the vision would be representative of actual days it would seem, but may or may not be like a video recording version. In all cases we'd guess the point of view though would be as if from the surface of Earth, and not the modern astronomy video version with fantastical zooming through space. So, on a cloudy day, you'd have the day/night cycle, but not see the sun, moon or stars, if the cloudiness is strong (like is typical even in this era for many days in England). Thus the light on day one seems best to fit the sun beginning to shine on the new and already rotating Earth, of course, but the sun moon and stars not yet visible due to clouds, just like computer simulations of Earth's early climate show would be constant 24/7/365 for on the order of a billion years, and still very cloudy for yet much longer even after small breaks began to finally appear (life already having begun).
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  7. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,339
    Christian
    Private
    I don't know if that question can be answered. I'm sure the Genesis creation/fall/flood accounts have been polluted by some prior to Moses writing it down.

    Even today in modern times Genesis is continuing to be polluted by those who would introduce long days, evolution and a local flood.

    As an example the account of the two great lights as presented in Genesis 1:14-19 certainly doesn't read like God separated clouds as Halbhh suggested above.
    Why not simply say God said let there be light and the sun appeared? Whay does Gen 1:14-19 go into such details and not say....God separated or removed the clouds?

    What was the original light on day 1? Who knows. Perhaps Rev 21:23 holds the answer. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.
     
  8. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,758
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    Yes, the Sumerian accounts were a perversion of the actual accounts. It likely occurred after the Tower of Babel.

    By the way, Nimrod the son of Cush*, the son of Ham, the son of Noah, three-four generations down from the flood, was among the first to build a kingdom on the earth, and it is in the same region of the Sumerians. Nimrod's kingdom began at "Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar" (Genesis 10:10). Many of us glance over this, but Babel is likely Babylon, Erech is the Hebrew name of the famous Uruk, and Accad likely refers to Akkad, (we still don't know where Calneh was). Shinar was the biblical name for the Furtile Crescent. The flood account would have been still fresh in the memory to some considerable extent to the next couple successive generations.

    *I meant Cush, not Canaan.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2019
  9. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +698
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    No, the Sumerian account was not a perversion of original accounts.
     
  10. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,758
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    How so?
     
  11. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +698
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    Because your assertion is no more accurate (or not) than mine.

    I imagine is that you may believe in a more literalist interpretation than I do.
     
  12. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,058
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I seem to have fewer assumptions than you might be using. Why shouldn't it be just like it reads, with the first day having a morning and evening, the earth then rotating? I didn't use several assumptions to make that morning and evening unlike the 4th. Any case, these theories about small details of creation the Bible does not address we have are trivial, compared to faith.
     
  13. JacobKStarkey

    JacobKStarkey Well-Known Member

    +698
    United States
    Methodist
    Married
    "long days" and "evolution" and "a local flood" are neither polluting nor small details.
     
  14. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,339
    Christian
    Private
    I think the dark, fromless and void earth was rotating on day 1. It's an assumption to say the "let there be light" event was the creation of the sun or even the Big Bang. Yes, I too have assumed when I presented the Rev 21:23 light but I'm trying to see what stands up scripturally. I used the bible to present a similar situation.
    I've also thought about the light being the creation of Angels but I favor Rev. As to the light being the sun, other assumptions must be implied such as what you did when you suggested the clouds moved away.
    You talked about "Why shouldn't it be just like it reads"...I agree. Gen 1:14-19 doesn't mention clouds.
     
  15. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,758
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    Actually, I believe that Genesis is the written word of God and that the historical account therein is accurate. In the Sumerian texts, the flood account is still different, even if there are similarities in the small details.

    "Enlil heard the clamour and he said to the gods in council, 'The uproar of mankind is intolerable and sleep is no longer possible by reason of the babel.' So the gods agreed to exterminate mankind." - Epic of Gilgamesh

    "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. So the Lord said, "I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land..." - Genesis 6:5-7

    You cannot believe both statements. There is either two options, one of the two are correct, or none of them are correct. If you believe that none of them are accurate, then you deny Scripture as the word of God.
     
  16. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,339
    Christian
    Private
    The concept of God using evolution to create mankind is a pollution. Typically along with this concept Genesis 1-3 is turned into some sort of myth or parable. In other words, it never really happened.

    If Genesis 1-3 never happened...then the fall or original sin never happened. But, I've noticed those in favor of long days. evolution and local flood don't seem to have the ability to tell us why mankind has a sin nature and needs forgiveness. They may say, but were sinners...I say, OK, but if it didn't happen like Genesis and the other authors of the bible say it happened...then how did it happen? Did man evolve a sin gene?
     
  17. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,058
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Ah. But I don't have to assume cloudy days exist. In fact here where we live it's about 1/2! Heh heh ;).

    Our theories aren't really that important though, so long as we don't try to claim our theory or assumption is Truth. The main danger in all ideas we've heard about details God chose not to include, such as the age of Earth, is pride making someone insist their view is Truth with a capital T. His Word is Truth. But our ideas about concrete details not in scripture, those are merely ideas. :)

    Ergo, 144 hour creationism is merely a theory also. A real danger here is when people make their theories into their God.
     
  18. Jonaitis

    Jonaitis Well-Known Member

    +1,758
    United States
    Reformed
    Single
    US-Republican
    I consider theistic evolution dangerous for reasons like the ones you gave. If one takes such a view consistently, it destroys the entire foundation of the Christian faith and the message of the gospel.
     
  19. Halbhh

    Halbhh The wonder and awe of "all things" Supporter

    +4,058
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Now I'm concerned whether you've heard Christ's Words. If you read them with listening, it will change that view. The foundation of Christianity is Christ, and His gospel.
     
  20. -57

    -57 Well-Known Member

    +1,339
    Christian
    Private
    God did tell us pretty much when He made the earth. Bishop Ussher did the math. He counted up the ages from the genealogy presented in the bible. He came to a date of 4004 BC. Ages from the LXX Greek Old Testament push it back slightly further. If you have the time you can do the math.

    Some have argued that the genealogy isn't complete...which may be true....but it's not millions of years incomplete.

    Then along comes scientific evidences for a young earth such as biomaterial found in dinosaur fossiled bones which shouldn't be there if the strata from which they were pulled are 65+ MY's old.
     
Loading...