Creationist Verses

[gluadys]

Why do you think people did not used to have the concept of a myth? Could you give me a source?

Oh, they did have the concept of myth. But they didn't see myth as different from reality as we do. Their reality included myth and they saw myth as pervading reality with no sharp line drawn between them.

In short, their vision of reality was mythological.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

A Christian axiom: Adam was the first human being.

 

[RightWingGirl]

"Myth" doesn't necessarily mean "false," although popular use has made it seem that way.

The Bible contains myths... there's no getting around that.... as well as history, poetry, wisdom literature, and what-have-you. Knowing what's what when you're reading it isn't always easy.

But "myth" does mean "not factually correct", fictitious, right?

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

right wing....just stop bothering over words. If you didn't see my previous post about this. Learn their languages, if you have to.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

It is physically possible for God to create the universe in six days, six hours, six minutes--what will you. It is not phsically possible to put wrath, which is an emotion, into a bowl. I belive the bowls are symbolic.

God could do anything. He could make a universe where physicality was so different that bowls could physically contain wrath. However, in our universe, that is indeed impossible. I agree that is a good reason to see the bowls as symbolic.

God could also create a universe in six days, but assuming that universe bore witness to his creative work, it would not be like our universe, any more than those hypothetical bowls would be like bowls in our universe. Our universe bears witness to creation that began billions of years ago and continues to this day.

So, just as you treat the bowls of God's wrath symbolically because treating them literally leads to you to logical contradiction with reality as we know it, I also treat the days of God's creation symbolically partly because treating them literally would point to a creation other than the world I live in. (There's other reasons too. The genre and form of both Revelation 16 and Genesis 1 provide many clues that the accounts should not be read literalistically.)

WHat do you think the days are symbolic of?

They are a framework used to describe creation, just like the seals, trumpets and bowls are a framework for describing God's wrath and judgement. Days are used to relate God's creation (which is ongoing to this day) and God's rest (which is also ongoing to this day) to the human work week and Sabbath.

In this way, something beyond human comprehension (God's creation and rest) are brought down to our level through something we experience (the week). This is similar to how the incarnation, life and death of Jesus are brought down to our level in the bread and wine of the Lord's supper. Personally, I think there is great distance between literal bread and Jesus' body and literal six days and God's creation, but Scripture equates bread to body and six days to God's creation in order to make the symbolism clear.

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

The Bible contains myths... there's no getting around that.... as well as history, poetry, wisdom literature, and what-have-you.

The most shocking thing stated in the Christian forum area.

WHOA!

 

[RightWingGirl]

A Christian axiom: Adam was the first human being.

I suppose you are refering to the fact that Adam means "Man". However almost all names mean something. My name means "girl" or "lass" but that does not mean I am the only girl, a fake girl, or a representitive girl.

 

[chaoschristian]

I'm sorry about the text size!!
You think that the average Hebrew would have taken it as literal, that God created all in six solar days. God, being all knowing, would know what the Hebrews would make of it, correct?
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them'

It's a little more subtle and complex than that, which is a fancy way of me saying I don't know how to answer your question.

Go back to Gluady's response about how people didn't divide myth from fact. I think that captures that essence of what I am trying to convey.

 

[Dracil]

Do you think the Bible is a myth? The Pheonix example seems to hang on this--are we speaking of myth or reality.

Why do you think people did not used to have the concept of a myth? Could you give me a source?


Could you please answer my question? (Of page hmm....five, I think) Thanks!

Oh yeah, the answer was "Yes, I concur"

The Bible has parts that are mythological yes. That doesn't mean that is all it is. Some parts are reality as well. There isn't a sharp line dividing the two. Another analogy time. At what point (if you shrunk it) does a bowl become a cup, or alternatively at what size does a cup (if you enlarged it) become a bowl? And more to the point, can you not use a bowl as a cup, or a cup as a bowl regardless of its size?

I didn't say they didn't have a concept of myth. I said they didn't have a concept of a difference between myth and reality. As for source, I don't have some direct source. It's based on stuff I learned in a class on the Bible, as well as stuff I've learned about ancient cultures in the various history courses I took. They're in dry textbooks that you can't just find online. And the other people have also provided some answers on it. I think glaudys said it better than I did.

 

[RightWingGirl]

They are a framework used to describe creation, just like the seals, trumpets and bowls are a framework for describing God's wrath and judgement. Days are used to relate God's creation (which is ongoing to this day) and God's rest (which is also ongoing to this day) to the human work week and Sabbath.

Hmm...if it was a "frame work" then it is badly done. The order in Genesis is almost completely opposite of the order prescribed by Evolution. WHy is that?

 

[RightWingGirl]

God could do anything. He could make a universe where physicality was so different that bowls could physically contain wrath. However, in our universe, that is indeed impossible. I agree that is a good reason to see the bowls as symbolic.

God could also create a universe in six days, but assuming that universe bore witness to his creative work, it would not be like our universe, any more than those hypothetical bowls would be like bowls in our universe. Our universe bears witness to creation that began billions of years ago and continues to this day.

So, just as you treat the bowls of God's wrath symbolically because treating them literally leads to you to logical contradiction with reality as we know it, I also treat the days of God's creation symbolically partly because treating them literally would point to a creation other than the world I live in. (There's other reasons too. The genre and form of both Revelation 16 and Genesis 1 provide many clues that the accounts should not be read literalistically.)


They are a framework used to describe creation, just like the seals, trumpets and bowls are a framework for describing God's wrath and judgement. Days are used to relate God's creation (which is ongoing to this day) and God's rest (which is also ongoing to this day) to the human work week and Sabbath.

In this way, something beyond human comprehension (God's creation and rest) are brought down to our level through something we experience (the week). This is similar to how the incarnation, life and death of Jesus are brought down to our level in the bread and wine of the Lord's supper. Personally, I think there is great distance between literal bread and Jesus' body and literal six days and God's creation, but Scripture equates bread to body and six days to God's creation in order to make the symbolism clear.

My point is that the bowls are obviously meant to be symbolic, while the Creation week is not. The creation story is not just a myth that appears in the begining of the Bible, but a theme that runs though the whole of it. It is mentioned by God,(Exodus 20:11), Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Disciples, prophets.....Can you show me anywhere in the bible where it is said, or indicated, that the six days of Creation were myth?

 

[chaoschristian]

My point is that the bowls are obviously meant to be symbolic

As presented today, there is nothing obvious about the symbolism of John's Apocalypse. A modern reader has to do a lot of work to get to that point of apprecication, whereas a contemperaneous reader would have understood instantly.

, while the Creation week is not.

Again, there is nothing obvious about this.

The creation story is not just a myth that appears in the begining of the Bible, but a theme that runs though the whole of it. It is mentioned by God,(Exodus 20:11), Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Disciples, prophets.....

Yes, and in each case, in context, the reference is an attempt to establish or authenticate divine authority.

Can you show me anywhere in the bible where it is said, or indicated, that the six days of Creation were myth?

Can you show that any part of the Bible references itself as myth, outside of perhaps the parables?

 

[Marshall Janzen]

Hmm...if it was a "frame work" then it is badly done. The order in Genesis is almost completely opposite of the order prescribed by Evolution. WHy is that?

The same reason the order of Jesus' temptation in Luke 4 is "badly done" if it is attempting to recount chronological details and it truly happened in the order Matthew 4 gives (or vice versa). However, if one or both of these accounts aren't trying to give chronological details and have other reasons for their order, we shouldn't claim that either of them are badly done.

Genesis 1 has obvious meaning in its order without forcing the order to be chronological. If the order were chronological, it would be superfluous. For instance, if I listed all of my cousins in alphabetical order, you probably wouldn't presume that this was also the order they were born in. The order already has an explanation without that, and it would be quite a coincidence if the order alphabetically and by birth was the same.

The structure in Genesis 1 is that the first three days correspond to the second set of three days. Light (day 1) matches with luminaries (day 4). (On both these days light/day is separated from darkness/night, making a chronological reading quite unlikely.) The firmament dividing the waters is formed (day 2) and then filled with fish and birds (day 5). Dry land arises and is covered with vegetation (day 3) and this land is filled with land animals and humans (day 6). Three days of dividing and forming three realms, followed by three corresponding days of filling these realms with creatures. (Note that the sun and moon are personified as rulers, in keeping with them being considered part of the creaturely set, rather than being mere "set dressing" like the vegetation on day 3.)

The symmetry of this structure breaks down if other things are added that were also created by God, such as bacteria, seaweed, other planets and moons, hell, angels, and the abode of the angels. The symmetry is only present based on the select items the author chose to include. If the symmetry was present when absolutely everything was included, then it would be plausible to say that God actually created this way. But why would God create in a way that only has symmetry when certain items are left out? It seems obvious that the symmetry is there because of the way the author divided creation into days, and not because of following a historical order.

The reason for the order in Genesis 1 is far more obvious than the reason for the non-chronological order in either Luke 4 or Matthew 4, or both.

---

Now, you also asked some questions about what the average Hebrew at the time would have thought of the creation accounts. I have another question. What do you think the average Hebrew at the time this was written, without the knowledge of modern science, would have thought that this meant:

"Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted." (Genesis 30:37-39, ESV)

Do you think the average Hebrew would have known that looking at the branches did nothing to affect the genetics of the offspring, and so the result was entirely a miracle?

 

[Extirpated Wildlife]

chaos...I think it is a legitimate question to ask a TE how they prove the creation was allegoryl/myth of what God actually did. I should think that if you are truely a Bible believing TE that you could attempt to explain how the plausibility of evolution is plausible.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Chaos,
Sir, is this right?

A. God is all-knowing
B. Being all-knowing, God would have known that Exodus 20:11 would be interpreted literally by the hebrews--that they would think he meant exactly what he said, having no reason to think otherwise.
C. You belive the earth was not created in six days
D. You think that what is said in Exodus 20:11 is not literally true (as the Hebrews supposed).

True is here defined as literally, historically true.

Therefore, you think that what God wrote in Exodus 20:11 was not true (C.), God knew it was not true(A.) and that the Hebrews would think it was true (B.)

Are any of my points wrong? I know it's a bit strong, a bit black-and-white, but I'm trying to be clear.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Genesis 1 has obvious meaning in its order without forcing the order to be chronological. If the order were chronological, it would be superfluous. For instance, if I listed all of my cousins in alphabetical order, you probably wouldn't presume that this was also the order they were born in. The order already has an explanation without that, and it would be quite a coincidence if the order alphabetically and by birth was the same.


The reason for the order in Genesis 1 is far more obvious than the reason for the non-chronological order in either Luke 4 or Matthew 4, or both.

What is the reason for the order?

---

Now, you also asked some questions about what the average Hebrew at the time would have thought of the creation accounts. I have another question. What do you think the average Hebrew at the time this was written, without the knowledge of modern science, would have thought that this meant:

"Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted." (Genesis 30:37-39, ESV)

Do you think the average Hebrew would have known that looking at the branches did nothing to affect the genetics of the offspring, and so the result was entirely a miracle?

The average Hebrew would probably know much more than I about farming. Even he did not keep sheep himself he would likely have known someone that did. With this knowledge, I think that he would know that this was a miracle.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

My point is that the bowls are obviously meant to be symbolic, while the Creation week is not.

And it's obvious to me that both are meant to be symbolic. To move further, you need to share why one is obvious to you while the other isn't. I gave my reasons for seeing both as symbolic.

The creation story is not just a myth that appears in the begining of the Bible, but a theme that runs though the whole of it. It is mentioned by God,(Exodus 20:11)

Do you take that verse as being written directly by the finger of God onto the stone tablets? If so, how do you explain Deuteronomy 5? It lists the "words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them on two tablets of stone" (Deuteronomy 5:22). Yet, the Sabbath command does not contain a reference to creation in this account, even though God "added no more" than what is listed there.

My view is that the author(s) provided commentary on the command in both Exodus 20:11 and Deuteronomy 5:15, but these words could not have been on the stone tablets since they do not agree. Both are inspired commentary, of course, but it would be wrong to elevate Exodus 20:11 above the rest of Scripture by claiming it was written directly by God's finger.

...mentioned by God,(Exodus 20:11), Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Disciples, prophets.....

You seem to be forgetting that we all agree that creation happened and God did it. The people you mentioned did not all mention the six days. And, even if they had mentioned them, there's no rule saying a symbol cannot be mentioned. For instance, the tree of life from Genesis 2-3 also shows up again in Revelation (which you've agreed is a book containing symbolism).

Can you show me anywhere in the bible where it is said, or indicated, that the six days of Creation were myth?

It's right after the verse that indicates that the seven bowls of God's wrath are figurative.

 

[RightWingGirl]

The people you mentioned did not all mention the six days.

The verses I am speaking of either indicate the reality of the flood, or the existance of man since the beginning of time.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

What is the reason for the order?

I attempted to give it in the two paragraphs you snipped in your response.

The average Hebrew would probably know much more than I about farming. Even he did not keep sheep himself he would likely have known someone that did. With this knowledge, I think that he would know that this was a miracle.

The account says that since they bred by the striped branches, they brought forth striped, speckled and spotted. You are ignoring the causality clearly indicated in the account due to what you know about genetics. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the ancient Hebrews shared your knowledge on that topic.

 

[Marshall Janzen]

The verses I am speaking of either indicate the reality of the flood, or the existance of man since the beginning of time.

If Matthew 19:4 means that humans existed from the beginning of the universe, does John 15:27 mean the disciples also existed from the beginning of the universe?

Mark 10:5-6 says "beginning of creation". You've been clear that you believe creation took exactly six days. Is the beginning of creation the first day or the sixth day?

As you can see, by being hyperliteral, it's quite easy to make a verse mean something that is incorrect. However, there's no need to do so. The verses about male and female make perfect sense if God is referring to the creation of humans, especially since the context is marriage. As long as there have been humans made in the image of God, they've been male and female. Science doesn't contradict this statement (though of course it can't comment on the image of God).