susankenny Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 It's why I don't understand the point-of-view that says the Bible is true, but the creation story is just a poetic story. Me neither. I've really never grasped that. Susan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) Honestly, do you not feel a lot of the bible is completely and totally far-fetched? Is any of it reasonable and with explanation? Why is this one thing a deal breaker, but you can somehow accept all of the rest?? Susan The Book of Ruth is a beautifully reasonable bit of the Bible. I think accept/reject is the wrong way to look at it anyway. Educate yourself and learn how to approach and appreciate it whether you're a believer or not. ETA: I reread this and it looks like I'm specifically upbraiding you Susan. Sorry. I meant my comments to be taken in a very general sense. Edited April 5, 2012 by WishboneDawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) That's saying the wages of sin is death but it doesn't follow that death wouldn't happen without sin. According to that and other verses in the Bible, *human* death is tied to sin. But you could be right about animal death, since they don't have a soul. That's my big question here. ETA: Tex mex-the above addresses the dinosaurs. As a YE'er, I would say they lived contemporaneously with man. With my new thoughts today, I wonder too if animals could have lived/died before (and during) Adam and Eve, since they have no soul. I hope someone will pop in and mention if there is a Scripture that speaks to this. Edited April 5, 2012 by HappyGrace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Then that seems to be rather bad logic. That's saying the wages of sin is death but it doesn't follow that death wouldn't happen without sin. It all seems like bad logic to me. ;) I don't really have any stake in it either way. That's just what I was taught when I was YEC. That death came after the Fall and was a result of the Fall. That God's warning to A&E that they would "surely die" meant that death would come about because of sin. I am leaning towards the Pre-Adamic theory in which the Dinosaurs ruled the Earth and DIED. How does one explain that? Where do you put them in the line-up, then? I am familiar with the view-point, but I never understood where one figures the dinosaurs go. Did God create everything but Adam, let the dinosaurs have a go for a couple million years, scrapped it all and then made man? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
susankenny Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Because I wholeheartedly believe that the Word of God is Truth. That it is all God-breathed. He is sovereign and I don't know why He put some of the seemingly far-fetched things in there, but He did it for His perfect purposes. He is supernatural and beyond natural laws. Obviously, both YE and OE can't be true, so I'm trying to puzzle it out for myself from the Word of Truth which one is correct. It may not be possible to know from what He has given us. And it does not affect my belief in Him in any way. But it is interesting to study and ponder. I just struggle understanding why the scientific evidence matters in the creation account, but is often irrelevant in all of the other supernatural aspects of the bible. And I'm not picking on you. Honest. I commend you for trying to flesh out what you believe and asking questions. I just see a lot of threads that hyper focus on OE/YE and I can't help but wonder why we will intellectually hash it out with one another regarding that, when the entire bible is filled with scientific anomalies. Susan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 Quill-the way animals are made is a quibble I've always had as a YE'er. I always just assumed they evolved (micro-evolution, NOT macro-so within species) as an adaptation after the Fall but that never quite sat right with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 That God's warning to A&E that they would "surely die" meant that death would come about because of sin. Yes, as a YE'er, I've assumed that meant ALL death-wondering now if that may have meant human death OR spiritual death (as in separation from God). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Beats me. The stars are old and so is the earth. That's what I believe now. God made stars and they are old. I don't believe in a 7-day Creation anymore. It's why I don't understand the point-of-view that says the Bible is true, but the creation story is just a poetic story. I sort of think the idea that, "this is obviously not right but all this other stuff if true," is weird as well. But I think it's as weird to reject the Bible because it isn't literal truth (not meant to imply anything about your personal reasons). I think that's a pretty modern view that Fundamentalism brought us in the 1800's. The truth men likes Augustine were concerned with for instance were not literal. They were ideals, human and religious truths, not measurable facts. I see a lot of people who've left a literal, YE POV but still carry around the same paradigm for the Bible in their heads. To them I say get thee to a Bart Ehrman book. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I just struggle understanding why the scientific evidence matters in the creation account, but is often irrelevant in all of the other supernatural aspects of the bible. And I'm not picking on you. Honest. I commend you for trying to flesh out what you believe and asking questions. I just see a lot of threads that hyper focus on OE/YE and I can't help but wonder why we will intellectually hash it out with one another regarding that, when the entire bible is filled with scientific anomalies. Susan Good point. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 An excellent point that got lost in the discussion. I mentioned it in post 13. At least one patristic teaching is like this (quoting what I said before): When God wants to stop Adam and Eve from taking of the Tree of Life before they become immortal, this is usually explained to mean that, had they eaten of that tree in their fallen state, they would have become fixed in that state. Before the Fall their nature was to be with God. After, they have obscured that nature through their act of rebellion, but it is still there - we are still meant to be with God - as Augustine says, we are made to be with him and are never satisfied until we are. But to ear of the Tree of Life in that state would mean to make separation from God, or death, an actual part of our nature, changing it. So barring them from the Garden was, according to this view, a way to protect them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker of Schole Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Yes, as a YE'er, I've assumed that meant ALL death-wondering now if that may have meant human death OR spiritual death (as in separation from God). I have not taken a stance as YE or OE, but I have always believed that it has meant spiritual death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 I just struggle understanding why the scientific evidence matters in the creation account, but is often irrelevant in all of the other supernatural aspects of the bible. And I'm not picking on you. Honest. I commend you for trying to flesh out what you believe and asking questions. I just see a lot of threads that hyper focus on OE/YE and I can't help but wonder why we will intellectually hash it out with one another regarding that, when the entire bible is filled with scientific anomalies.Susan I see what you're saying. I guess I'm not really focusing on scientific evidence. I have not really focused on that here in this thread. I am focusing more on what do the Scriptures actually say about OE vs. YE (specifically if there could have been death before the Fall, and what that means in the Biblical scheme of things.) Because Scripture is my truth, even more that what my eyes see or what science tells me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Because some parts of scripture are not necessarily meant to be understood as history, while others are. It isn't a matter of painting the whole thing with one brush, but understanding how it was written and why. I get that. But there's a ton of information in Genesis that speaks to what we're supposed to believe about the rest of the Bible. Adam and Eve is a story that is supposed to explain why there is evil and why we must suffer. Why there is a need for a Savior, even. If it's just an illustrative story, then what could it possibly illustrate? For another example, if you don't believe in a literal 7-day creation, then what do you believe about that tale? Is the order true? When do dinosaurs fit in? Is it true that God was all tuckered out when he was done and had to put a rest period in as well? This is where I don't understand selecting certain parts of the Bible that one would rather call "allegory," yet still maintaining that it is all the true, infallible Word of God. It just strikes me as a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
susankenny Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Because Scripture is my truth, even more that what my eyes see or what science tells me. Amen :grouphug: I pray you find your answers or peace in the not knowing. Susan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) I have not taken a stance as YE or OE, but I have always believed that it has meant spiritual death. I just went back to the Scriptures, and I think I kind of answered my own question somewhat-the Tree of Life was taken away from them, which was to do with actual physical death. So maybe it was both spiritual and physical, or just physical, but I don't think it seems to be just spiritual. Although the question remains on that, like you mentioned earlier, if death existed before that, but my personal opinion from my reading of Scripture is that I don't think it did for humans. (and I mentioned why upthread.) ETA: Bluegoat, I agree with you about the Tree of Life-that it was barred after the Fall as an act of mercy by God, so that man would not continue eternally on earth in his fallen state. AND the fact that He did that is yet another reason to believe that there was NOT human death before the Fall. (or even humans, for that matter, obviously.) Edited April 5, 2012 by HappyGrace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I get that. But there's a ton of information in Genesis that speaks to what we're supposed to believe about the rest of the Bible. Adam and Eve is a story that is supposed to explain why there is evil and why we must suffer. Why there is a need for a Savior, even. If it's just an illustrative story, then what could it possibly illustrate? For another example, if you don't believe in a literal 7-day creation, then what do you believe about that tale? Is the order true? When do dinosaurs fit in? Is it true that God was all tuckered out when he was done and had to put a rest period in as well? This is where I don't understand selecting certain parts of the Bible that one would rather call "allegory," yet still maintaining that it is all the true, infallible Word of God. It just strikes me as a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too position. My own beliefs are in flux but as a Christian I believed Jesus was the Word of God and the Bible was witness to that Word. A lot of Christians don't believe the Bible is infallible. That's more of a Fundamentalist position and came about recently in response to Biblical criticism in the 1800's. ETA: I'm going. I have no business trying to make sense here with the head cold I've got. Sleep and medication are calling me. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I just struggle understanding why the scientific evidence matters in the creation account, but is often irrelevant in all of the other supernatural aspects of the bible. And I'm not picking on you. Honest. I commend you for trying to flesh out what you believe and asking questions. I just see a lot of threads that hyper focus on OE/YE and I can't help but wonder why we will intellectually hash it out with one another regarding that, when the entire bible is filled with scientific anomalies. Susan In the case of a miracle, what we have is some sort of reason to think the normal way things happen has been in some way changed or overturned on a temporary basis. We observe the normal order of things, and see an exception to it, and either conclude it is a weird thing we don't understand or a miracle. In the case of, say, evidence that the universe has existed for a long time, we are not actually seeing overturning of the normal order of things at all. We are seeing what seems to be the normal order of things and being asked to believe that God did something different. And furthermore, that he did it in such a way as to lead us to conclusions other than what is the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 Sleep and medication are calling me. :D Feel better, Wishbone! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 My own beliefs are in flux but as a Christian I believed Jesus was the Word of God and the Bible was witness to that Word. A lot of Christians don't believe the Bible is infallible. That's more of a Fundamentalist position and came about recently in response to Biblical criticism in the 1800's. ETA: I'm going. I have no business trying to make sense here with the head cold I've got. Sleep and medication are calling me. :D Darn, cause that was one of the more logical things I've heard about the Bible. Thanks for giving me one little sip and then going off for a nap! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 I really, really want to thank everyone for remaining so civil in this discussion so far! It has been great food for thought. If anyone thinks of any Scriptures supporting either way for the death (especially of animals) before the Fall, please chime in with them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 I just went back to the Scriptures, and I think I kind of answered my own question somewhat-the Tree of Life was taken away from them, which was to do with actual physical death. So maybe it was both spiritual and physical, or just physical, but I don't think it seems to be just spiritual. Although the question remains on that, like you mentioned earlier, if death existed before that, but my personal opinion from my reading of Scripture is that I don't think it did for humans. (and I mentioned why upthread.) ETA: Bluegoat, I agree with you about the Tree of Life-that it was barred after the Fall as an act of mercy by God, so that man would not continue eternally on earth in his fallen state. AND the fact that He did that is yet another reason to believe that there was NOT human death before the Fall. (or even humans, for that matter, obviously.) But doesn't the Tree of Life concept bother any of you? God has a conference with himself as if he only just now realized that the Tree of Life was a bad idea because now look - they are fallen and he doesn't want them to live forever now. Originally, he said they could eat from any tree except the Knowledge of Good and Evil one. Couldn't they have eaten first from the ToL and then gone on to eat from the Sin tree? That would have totally sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 There is a TON of that in the Bible. I just chalk it up to His sovereignty plus His foreknowledge/omniscience of what would happen (which is a whole other ball of wax). I don't think we can really understand a lot of those types of things that are in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker of Schole Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Although the question remains on that, like you mentioned earlier, if death existed before that, but my personal opinion from my reading of Scripture is that I don't think it did for humans. (and I mentioned why upthread.) If death did not exist for humans, why did the tree of life exist? (Just playing devils advocate a little...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Here is a link from someone who has examined the idea that there was animal death before the Fall. Perhaps something there will be useful to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 If death did not exist for humans, why did the tree of life exist? (Just playing devils advocate a little...) A worthy question. I always understood it as a Fountain of Youth type of concept. That death was possible until they ate from the Tree of Life and then - poof! - immortality! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyGrace Posted April 5, 2012 Author Share Posted April 5, 2012 A worthy question. :iagree: Kind of a chicken/egg thing, maybe. My brain is fried from thinking these thoughts all day. Going to make dinner! Quill-thanks for the link-will check it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker of Schole Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 My own beliefs are in flux but as a Christian I believed Jesus was the Word of God and the Bible was witness to that Word. A lot of Christians don't believe the Bible is infallible. That's more of a Fundamentalist position and came about recently in response to Biblical criticism in the 1800's. :iagree::iagree::iagree: I believe what was originally handed down was the infallible word of God. I also believe that what we have in front of us is a many times translated and edited by humans work. There have been books removed and added at different times, and that alone reflects the desire of man to use God's word to manipulate. So while I believe the story of salvation, I also believe there is a need to study and meditate and research and pray over the Word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 (edited) I get that. But there's a ton of information in Genesis that speaks to what we're supposed to believe about the rest of the Bible. Adam and Eve is a story that is supposed to explain why there is evil and why we must suffer. Why there is a need for a Savior, even. If it's just an illustrative story, then what could it possibly illustrate? For another example, if you don't believe in a literal 7-day creation, then what do you believe about that tale? Is the order true? When do dinosaurs fit in? Is it true that God was all tuckered out when he was done and had to put a rest period in as well? This is where I don't understand selecting certain parts of the Bible that one would rather call "allegory," yet still maintaining that it is all the true, infallible Word of God. It just strikes me as a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too position. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "just an illustrative story" because I would not at all characterize it that way. I also would not tend to think of it as a historical narrative. I would say it is more like perfect art, in that it expresses completely true things - facts even - in a way more clear and concise than a historical treatment would have. Some of it may even be historical. Having your cake and eating it too would be making any portion of scripture one wanted into an allegory and maybe then discounting what it said as an allegory too. That is not the case when there is some good reason for thinking the text is something other than a history or science book. No one thinks Proverbs or Song of Solomon is meant to be history. Genesis has been treated as an allegory throughout the history of the Church, and while some also cosnidered it a narrative, others didn't. Not even all early Jewish sources considered it as necessarily historical. And there are, I am told, good textual reasons that philologists do not think it was meant to be understood as history - it is not written like texts in that genre would have been. All of which means, when the idea of the beginning of the universe having a long history came along, it was not all that hard for people to see Genesis as something other than history, since it already had been understood that way. As for what it could possibly illustrate: God created, moves, and sustains all things. He is the foundation of being. In the created order we have a special relation with God, being made in his image. That relation was intimate but included boundaries. Mankind was at the apex in some way of material creation and had a responsibility to and authority over it. THe first people (and that is a big thing to unpack but I think it was indeed two people who were types of a sort) transgressed those boundaries, choosing to separate themselves from the source of life. In doing so they became subject to death and were sent into a world affected by their choice and had to make their way there. Their relationship not only with God but creation and others was disordered. This also seemed to affect their children and indeed all human civilization, though they still had a relationship with God. Things seemed to get worse all the time. I don't think God was really tired in the way we think of it, since he has no body and is omnipotent. In a pinch, I would say that stillness is also a part of God's nature, not just activity. We require a Savior because we are separated from God, and can't fix it. None of these things requires a literalistic view of Genesis or Scripture in general. Edited April 5, 2012 by Bluegoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 hkchik-I think we YE'ers always point out (and this was one of the things that originally swayed me) that "yom" in the Hebrew in this text always refers in the Bible to a literal 24 hour day. The Hebrew in which text? The word "yom" is translated many different ways throughout the OT, and even within the Creation account itself -- as a period of 12 hours, a 24-hour day, and even an entire week. There is a good rebuttal to that position here. I was raised YE, but I believe our God is a God of order, and the author of science. Science is how we understand His handiwork -- because He certainly didn't spell everything out in the Bible. So, if science and my understanding of the Bible don't agree -- something has got to be wrong. Either the science is wrong, as it sometimes is... or my understanding of the Bible is wrong, as it many times is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "just an illustrative story" because I would not at all characterize it that way. I also would not tend to think of it as a historical narrative. I would say it is more like perfect art, in that it expresses completely true things - facts even - in a way more clear and concise than a historical treatment would have. Some of it may even be historical. Having your cake and eating it too would be making any portion of scripture one wanted into an allegory and maybe then discounting what it said as an allegory too. That is not the case when there is some good reason for thinking the text is something other than a history or science book. No one thinks Proverbs or Song of Solomon is meant to be history. Genesis has been treated as an allegory throughout the history of the Church, and while some also cosnidered it a narrative, others didn't. Not even all early Jewish sources considered it as necessarily historical. And there are, I am told, good textual reasons that philologists do not think it was meant to be understood as history - it is not written like texts in that genre would have been. All of which means, when the idea of the beginning of the universe having a long history came along, it was not all that hard for people to see Genesis as something other than history, since it already had been understood that way. As for what it could possibly illustrate: God created, moves, and sustains all things. He is the foundation of being. In the created order we have a special relation with God, being made in his image. That relation was intimate but included boundaries. Mankind was at the apex in some way of material creation and had a responsibility to and authority over it. THe first people (and that is a big thing to unpack but I think it was indeed two people who were types of a sort) transgressed those boundaries, choosing to separate themselves from the source of life. In doing so they became subject to death and were sent into a world affected by their choice and had to make their way there. Their relationship not only with God but creation and others was disordered. This also seemed to affect their children and indeed all human civilization, though they still had a relationship with God. Things seemed to get worse all the time. I don't think God was really tired in the way we think of it, since he has no body and is omnipotent. In a pinch, I would say that stillness is also a part of God's nature, not just activity. We require a Savior because we are separated from God, and can't fix it. None of these things requires a literalistic view of Genesis or Scripture in general. Well, I'm happy to see you have a well-thought-out understanding of your own thoughts. I find that to be somewhat rare, actually. I think the bolded part is one of the more beautiful sentiments I've ever heard. It's a shame I was not taught to think the way you phrase it. Things might have turned out differently for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluegoat Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Well, I'm happy to see you have a well-thought-out understanding of your own thoughts. I find that to be somewhat rare, actually. I think the bolded part is one of the more beautiful sentiments I've ever heard. It's a shame I was not taught to think the way you phrase it. Things might have turned out differently for me. :) I was lucky to get some good teaching, but not until I was an adult in my 20's. But it's never too late to look at different ways of thinking about things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mytwomonkeys Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Genesis has been treated as an allegory throughout the history of the Church, and while some also cosnidered it a narrative, others didn't. Not even all early Jewish sources considered it as necessarily historical. And there are, I am told, good textual reasons that philologists do not think it was meant to be understood as history - it is not written like texts in that genre would have been. All of which means, when the idea of the beginning of the universe having a long history came along, it was not all that hard for people to see Genesis as something other than history, since it already had been understood that way. None of these things requires a literalistic view of Genesis or Scripture in general. i'm just curious. are you speaking about all of genesis or just the creation story? just trying to clarify where you're coming from.:) i edited your post, to be more clear in what i am asking about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 Darn, cause that was one of the more logical things I've heard about the Bible. Thanks for giving me one little sip and then going off for a nap! ;) The nap didn't work so I'm now sitting here sipping a hot peppermint drink. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applesing Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 In understand your POV but don't agree with it. I believe in Genesis and a literal Adam and Eve and a real Fall. I also think that the account of creation is on the poetic side and does not need to be taken as an account of 6 24-hour days (the Hebrew does not seem to require that). It seems to me that many YECs have fallen into a trap originally posited by materialists. They said "Evolution proves there is no God!" YECs said "You're right! Therefore we must, at all costs, prove evolution false." But as far as I can tell, the theory of evolution does not disprove God, or Genesis, or Christianity at all. The Bible tells us why the earth was created, and is much more concerned with how we treat each other than the exact process by which life was established on the earth. Evolutionary evidence just gives us some hints about that last part, nothing more. To me, the position that YEC is crucial to Christianity just makes a lot of people decide that all of Christianity must be false. I believe that the necessary ingredient in Christianity is Jesus Christ, and the exact details of how we got here are not that crucial. God is probably a pretty good biologist, after all. All this is to say--I don't particularly want to convince you that YEC is true or not true. But if you feel yourself shaky on that one point, please don't think that means you are losing your faith in Christ. I completely agree with this response! This is beautifully and sensitively written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeOrchidSong Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "just an illustrative story" because I would not at all characterize it that way. I also would not tend to think of it as a historical narrative. I would say it is more like perfect art, in that it expresses completely true things - facts even - in a way more clear and concise than a historical treatment would have. Some of it may even be historical. Having your cake and eating it too would be making any portion of scripture one wanted into an allegory and maybe then discounting what it said as an allegory too. That is not the case when there is some good reason for thinking the text is something other than a history or science book. No one thinks Proverbs or Song of Solomon is meant to be history. Genesis has been treated as an allegory throughout the history of the Church, and while some also cosnidered it a narrative, others didn't. Not even all early Jewish sources considered it as necessarily historical. And there are, I am told, good textual reasons that philologists do not think it was meant to be understood as history - it is not written like texts in that genre would have been. All of which means, when the idea of the beginning of the universe having a long history came along, it was not all that hard for people to see Genesis as something other than history, since it already had been understood that way. As for what it could possibly illustrate: God created, moves, and sustains all things. He is the foundation of being. In the created order we have a special relation with God, being made in his image. That relation was intimate but included boundaries. Mankind was at the apex in some way of material creation and had a responsibility to and authority over it. THe first people (and that is a big thing to unpack but I think it was indeed two people who were types of a sort) transgressed those boundaries, choosing to separate themselves from the source of life. In doing so they became subject to death and were sent into a world affected by their choice and had to make their way there. Their relationship not only with God but creation and others was disordered. This also seemed to affect their children and indeed all human civilization, though they still had a relationship with God. Things seemed to get worse all the time. I don't think God was really tired in the way we think of it, since he has no body and is omnipotent. In a pinch, I would say that stillness is also a part of God's nature, not just activity. We require a Savior because we are separated from God, and can't fix it. None of these things requires a literalistic view of Genesis or Scripture in general. I like what you said!:001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.