s/o from evolution as a belief

[HRAAB]

I asked a question in the other thread, but it didn't seem on topic so I'm bringing it over here:

 

"This is something that truly interests me.

 

Creationists start with the Bible, which for them is God's literal Truth, and then use the tools of man, science, to try and prove it.  For some creationists it is extremely important to prove the creation story as related in Genesis.  How will any creationist ever be able to prove the Genesis story using science, and why is this so important to people of faith - with faith being the key word here.  I guess in a way it seems to me to that trying to prove God's existence and the literal Truth of His Word, seems almost an affront to faith.  Also, why are not Christians equally intent on proving other parts of their faith, which actually seem more important to the Christian story, such as Christ's virgin birth or his resurrection?

 

Why is proving Genesis of such importance?  I'm asking because I have family members who spend far more time talking about, reading about, studying about creationism vs. evolution that they spend talking about Jesus.

 

I'm asking this question of YEC because I know there are many, many (the majority) Christians who do not view Genesis literally and it in no way brings their faith into question for them."

 

Basically, why?  I hope this doesn't sound offensive, but it seems to me like a last ditch effort to prove the truth of Christianity - if we can prove the Genesis creation story, then all the rest will fall into place, that this is more about religion than science.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It has to do with the belief that there was no death before Adam and Eve had the incident with the apple/were booted out of the Garden of Eden.  As they have a literal interpretation of the Bible, saying you believe in an old earth/evolution means you are saying the Book of Genesis is a lie and you are questioning the word of God.  This is why AIG's literature shows T-Rex eating watermelons in the Garden of Eden.

Old earth Christians do not take all parts of the Bible literally and therefore they can accept an old earth belief. 

 

Ham and Nye actually touched on this a bit in their debate.

[SKL]

Maybe because it's the only part where scientists claim to have absolute proof that it is untrue.

 

The rest, you can argue that it is illogical or ridiculously unlikely, but people can always say "with God all things are possible" etc.

[EKS]

Why are only certain parts of the Old Testament taken seriously?  For example, why is the creation story upheld as the truth whereas just about everything in Leviticus is disregarded?  Shouldn't both Genesis and Leviticus be regarded as the word of God?

 

Or did Jesus do something to make all that stuff in Leviticus somehow "unnecessary"?

[albeto.]

Maybe because it's the only part where scientists claim to have absolute proof that it is untrue.

 

lol, they don't

 

:)

 

 

In answer to the OP, I wonder if it has to do with the increasing pushback, the "new atheists" if you will. People who are not quietly disagreeing but are vocally challenging such claims inspire those who make these religious claims to find some way to hold on to credibility. There's also an interesting trend in the US with respect to religious thought becoming more public. It started to take off and catch attention in the late 70's with Jerry Falwell and his "moral majority." Cue in a president who started to refer to personal faith (Ronald Reagan), and the trend continued and picked up steam. That is, until more people became outspoken in challenging these claims. People love to target Richard Dawkins, but seem to forget Carl Sagan was no friend to religious thinking either. I think his voice was a whisper in the wind, but it inspired others, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye, who are outspoken when it comes to the dangers of accepting religious claims as valid explanations for the natural world. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why are only certain parts of the Old Testament taken seriously?  For example, why is the creation story upheld as the truth whereas just about everything in Leviticus is disregarded?  Shouldn't both Genesis and Leviticus be regarded as the word of God?

 

Or did Jesus do something to make all that stuff in Leviticus somehow "unnecessary"?

 

http://www.gci.org/law/otl10

 

Cliffs: Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament covenants.

[HRAAB]

It has to do with the belief that there was no death before Adam and Eve had the incident with the apple/were booted out of the Garden of Eden.  As they have a literal interpretation of the Bible, saying you believe in an old earth/evolution means you are saying the Book of Genesis is a lie and you are questioning the word of God.  This is why AIG's literature shows T-Rex eating watermelons in the Garden of Eden.

Old earth Christians do not take all parts of the Bible literally and therefore they can accept an old earth belief. 

 

Ham and Nye actually touched on this a bit in their debate.

 

So if Eve didn't get Adam to eat the fruit, there would have been no fall, no sin, no death, and no need for Jesus?

 

This is really more for them, literal creationists, than it is to prove to us evolutionists the truth of Genesis.  They need the Genesis story to be literally true or Jesus has no purpose?  That is why it is so important; it is the foundation their faith is built on.

 

I would be interested in hearing from YECs.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So if Eve didn't get Adam to eat the fruit, there would have been no fall, no sin, no death, and no need for Jesus?

 

This is really more for them, literal creationists, than it is to prove to us evolutionists the truth of Genesis.  They need the Genesis story to be literally true or Jesus has no purpose?  That is why it is so important; it is the foundation their faith is built on.

 

I would be interested in hearing from YECs.

 

Correct.  Ken Ham and those that follow his beliefs see believing in a young earth as a salvation issue, while many other Christians do not.

 

[EKS]

http://www.gci.org/law/otl10

 

Cliffs: Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament covenants.

 

Now, that was convenient!

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Basically, why?  I hope this doesn't sound offensive, but it seems to me like a last ditch effort to prove the truth of Christianity - if we can prove the Genesis creation story, then all the rest will fall into place, that this is more about religion than science.

 

 

The "attack" or "prove" issue is key, IMO.  From the Slate article I posted in the other thread:

 

But Ham is insidiously wrong on one important aspect: He insists evolution is anti-religious. But it’s not; it’s just anti-his-religion. This is, I think, the most critical aspect of this entire problem: The people who are attacking evolution are doing so because they think evolution is attacking their beliefs.

 

A parallel argument came up in an older thread about America's deep individualism and distrust of authority, which I argued might be a sort of self-selection thing, genetic or otherwise.  People in general will push back and/or retrench when they perceive attack.  Arguing with stats and facts, which makes perfect scientific sense, does no good, and actually only strengthens the "siege" response.  Build your own network and your own universities, shut the gates, and sure, everyone outside looks like Hun.

 

Perhaps we do it even more, based on our history and/or composition of temperaments, aided by our massive land resources and not having been invaded, which means not ever having to really adopt or adjust to another incoming culture, at least not on the massive scales that transformed Europe.

 

Or, the flip side...We're big and fractured, which encourages tribalism (religious, political, etc), because there's simply more psychological comfort in tribes, which is needed even more if other factors, like, say, job security, are in flux.

[livetoread]

I think there are thoughtful YECs who reject evolution because of its theological ramifications.

 

If there is a creator god, and this creator god used evolution to create, then what does that say about the nature of the creator god? It is evidence against the concept of a loving deity that hates death. In reality, suffering and death are a feature of the creative process, not a bug. This deity purposefully made a world where animals ripped each other to shreds for millions of years before humans ever came along. It's the problem of evil on steroids!

 

In the YEC narrative, it was not this god's intention for the world to have suffering and death. It's our fault. (Of course that still doesn't answer the problem of evil, but nothing really can.) With evolution, it's god's fault.

 

Some try and get around this by suggesting that this was the best possible world for this god to create. But then one would have to accept that there is no heaven. If God is capable of creating a space in which there is no suffering, why create a space where there is? Curiosity?

 

It's at this point that many who believe in a loving, powerful god, and also accept science throw up their hands and start talking about the mysterious ways of their god. One thing is true though. Evolution is an extremely powerful piece of evidence against the existence of a loving creator god as described by most Christians. Much easier to either discount evolution, or just not really try and reconcile things too much.

[Chris in VA]

I think that was a very interesting post, livetoread.

I've never heard that perspective.

I've never heard God hates death, only that God hates sin because it separates his creation from himself, since he is holy. The "death" and the "suffering" is more a spiritual death and a spiritual separation, without hope of reconciliation.

 

For me, the sticking point in evolution is that it seems to say there is no first cause. I could be wrong here, because my public school education, where I learned science, and my liberal Episcopal church, where I learned faith, never got into evolution to the point that Ken Ham and company do.  I do believe in a creator, but I don't know how he did it all.

 

It is not a sticking point for me that there was natural death of animals and bacteria and such before the fall.

 

But I'm not YE exactly.

[Rosie_0801]

 

For me, the sticking point in evolution is that it seems to say there is no first cause. 

 

 

Not quite. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to say about first causes because that's not what the Theory of Evolution is about. To criticise the Theory of Evolution for not providing explanations about first causes is just like criticising an algebra text for not explaining arithmetic, or physics, or drawing techniques. It is not a flaw in an algebra text that it teaches only algebra. 

[GSOchristie]

I'm not young earth, but I do believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".  Now, I think that beginning was likely millions of years ago, but I believe God was the creator.  I also believe in death before the fall, so I don't think evolution conflicts with the Genesis account.  Levitical law was specifically for the Jews, there were three types, which I cannot remember the names, but at least a portion of the law did not apply after the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus.  That's why Christians roll their eyes when people throw out the debate "well, if you think homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so, you cannot eat lasagna with meat and cheese."

[GSOchristie]

And I'm not sure why Ken Ham thinks there was no death before the fall, is it because of the verse about God killing an animal to atone for their sin?

[mytwomonkeys]

I asked a question in the other thread, but it didn't seem on topic so I'm bringing it over here:

"This is something that truly interests me.

Creationists start with the Bible, which for them is God's literal Truth, and then use the tools of man, science, to try and prove it. For some creationists it is extremely important to prove the creation story as related in Genesis. How will any creationist ever be able to prove the Genesis story using science, and why is this so important to people of faith - with faith being the key word here. I guess in a way it seems to me to that trying to prove God's existence and the literal Truth of His Word, seems almost an affront to faith. Also, why are not Christians equally intent on proving other parts of their faith, which actually seem more important to the Christian story, such as Christ's virgin birth or his resurrection?

Why is proving Genesis of such importance? I'm asking because I have family members who spend far more time talking about, reading about, studying about creationism vs. evolution that they spend talking about Jesus.

I'm asking this question of YEC because I know there are many, many (the majority) Christians who do not view Genesis literally and it in no way brings their faith into question for them."

Basically, why? I hope this doesn't sound offensive, but it seems to me like a last ditch effort to prove the truth of Christianity - if we can prove the Genesis creation story, then all the rest will fall into place, that this is more about religion than science.

I am a YEC and I really agree with you. I don't feel compelled to debate or scientifically prove the creation story anymore than I need to prove Jesus walked on water. The Bible is absolutely filled with supernatural phenomenon and miracles. Not being able to prove it doesn't discredit God or His word in any shape or form to me. It amazes me that people spend so much time debating whether Genesis is literal or not, when really, is it even a salvation issue?

 

I can absolutely defend why I believe what I believe if I had too, but honestly, I don't need science to do that.

[GSOchristie]

http://creationliberty.com/questions/3laws.php  Three types of laws.

[Cricket]

And I'm not sure why Ken Ham thinks there was no death before the fall, is it because of the verse about God killing an animal to atone for their sin?

 

Romans 5:12-14 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

 

If you interpret that to be physical death, then there is a problem.  

[Onceuponatime]

And I'm not sure why Ken Ham thinks there was no death before the fall, is it because of the verse about God killing an animal to atone for their sin?

 I believe it is because the Garden of Eden is supposed to have contained the Tree of Life and Adam and Ever were banished from the Garden. If people continued to have access to the tree they would never die. That there was absolutely no death of any kind appears to be assumed by some.

[Rosie_0801]

Chris, think of First Cause (or synonym of choice) as the first book in the series and the Theory of Evolution as the sequel. :p 

[Mrs Mungo]

Chris, think of First Cause (or synonym of choice) as the first book in the series and the Theory of Evolution as the sequel. :p

It goes back to what I was getting at in the other thread with regard to gravity:

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/503799-so-sorry-evolution-as-a-belief-system/?p=5466137

[GSOchristie]

Romans 5:12-14 "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

 

If you interpret that to be physical death, then there is a problem.  

 

Thank you, that makes sense.  But Adam and Eve were not immortal, right, I thought they had to eat from the Tree of Life to sustain their lives?  If they were immortal, why would the tree of life been put in the garden? (And I'm asking because I legitimately don't know :)).

[Luanne]

I think an equally interesting question (one I do not know the answer to) is why some people who claim to be Christians pick and choose what in the Bible they want to believe.  Is it out of convenience?  I don't know the answer to that.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think an equally interesting question (one I do not know the answer to) is why some people who claim to be Christians pick and choose what in the Bible they want to believe.  Is it out of convenience?  I don't know the answer to that.

That's a mischaracterization. Believing that the origins story in The Bible is metaphorical or symbolic does not mean they pick and choose what they want to believe.

[Rosie_0801]

I think an equally interesting question (one I do not know the answer to) is why some people who claim to be Christians pick and choose what in the Bible they want to believe.  Is it out of convenience?  I don't know the answer to that.

 

Because they own their own spirituality, perhaps.

[HRAAB]

I have some close family members that are YECs.  I've never actually heard them say that YEC is a salvation issues yet it is very, very important to them.  As I said in my first post, they spend much time discussing and reading about the topic.  It's the topic of conversation among them when we're gathered as a family.  The only reason that it makes sense to me is if it is tied to salvation, but I've never heard that from them.  Anyway, that's my question.  Why?    When I was inside a church my focus was on trying to love as Jesus did and being Jesus here on earth.  This huge emphasis on the Genesis creation story leaves me scratching my head?

[Whereneverever]

I believe that the issue with death and the fall comes from the whole, "For the wages of sin is death..." Thing in Romans.

[Mrs Mungo]

I believe that the issue with death and the fall comes from the whole, "For the wages of sin is death..." Thing in Romans.

But, that begs the question as to whether they believe there will be dinosaurs in heaven. Most (?) people believe that the verse applies to the human soul, yes?

[LucyStoner]

I think an equally interesting question (one I do not know the answer to) is why some people who claim to be Christians pick and choose what in the Bible they want to believe. Is it out of convenience? I don't know the answer to that.

Genesis contains two different creation stories. As you should well know. That seems to indicate that at least some picking is inherently required if we are to believe there is a literally true version of creation in Genesis.

 

I have read the Bible in full and more than once and I don't take away any set timeline of when the beginning was relative to when Jesus was born. Unless the last few Popes aren't Christian, there are Christians far more notable than Ken Ham that accept an OE, evolutionary viewpoint.

[livetoread]

I was raised YEC, so the concept of a god creating a perfect world was very important. Humans could look at his intentions for us, that we, and all other creatures, would not suffer and would not die. I can't get my mind around the idea of a deity creating all this suffering and people still concluding it's no big deal.

 

When bears eat baby deer, they have been observed scooping them up and then taking occasional bites out of them as the babies scream. It can take half an hour for them to die. Wolves often bring down their larger prey by slashing at it until it falls over from blood loss and shock. They then start eating it from the hindquarters while it's still alive because it's safer for them then trying to kill it first. How could anyone witness something like that and think a deity that created it is good and loving?

 

So I'm curious those of you who think God created the world through evolution, what does that say about God? Do you think God was capable of creating a world without suffering and death? Do you think there will be suffering and death in heaven, if you believe in heaven? When the Bible says God will create a new earth, do you think that will actually happen and if so, will it also have suffering and death? Would that be ok with you?

[PeachyDoodle]

I have some close family members that are YECs.  I've never actually heard them say that YEC is a salvation issues yet it is very, very important to them.  As I said in my first post, they spend much time discussing and reading about the topic.  It's the topic of conversation among them when we're gathered as a family.  The only reason that it makes sense to me is if it is tied to salvation, but I've never heard that from them.  Anyway, that's my question.  Why?    When I was inside a church my focus was on trying to love as Jesus did and being Jesus here on earth.  This huge emphasis on the Genesis creation story leaves me scratching my head?

 

Most YEC's I know don't regard it as a salvation issue, per se. I think for a lot of them, it has more to do with the authority of scripture. If you can take the creation account in Genesis (which presents itself in the form of a historical narrative, whether it is or not) as metaphorical, you can do the same thing with other historical passages. Which becomes a problem, especially when you get to the gospels. It's one of those "slippery slopes" we're always hearing about.

 

ETA: I have not as yet picked a side in the YEC/OEC debate -- like someone said in one of the other threads, I'm a "Middle Earther"! :D

 

[Freckles]

Genesis contains two different creation stories. As you should well know. That seems to indicate that at least some picking is inherently required if we are to believe there is a literally true version of creation in Genesis.

 

I have read the Bible in full and more than once and I don't take away any set timeline of when the beginning was relative to when Jesus was born. Unless the last few Popes aren't Christian, there are Christians far more notable than Ken Ham that accept an OE, evolutionary viewpoint.

 

I asked my dh about two different creation stories because I have never heard of this. He is an ordained minister. Our belief is that Genesis one and the first four verses of chp 2 capture all seven days of Creation, and the rest of chp 2 fleshes out the creation of Adam and especially of Eve. There are not two different creation stories from our understanding. Just wanted to throw in a different viewpoint.

[Freckles]

I was raised YEC, so the concept of a god creating a perfect world was very important. Humans could look at his intentions for us, that we, and all other creatures, would not suffer and would not die. I can't get my mind around the idea of a deity creating all this suffering and people still concluding it's no big deal.

 

When bears eat baby deer, they have been observed scooping them up and then taking occasional bites out of them as the babies scream. It can take half an hour for them to die. Wolves often bring down their larger prey by slashing at it until it falls over from blood loss and shock. They then start eating it from the hindquarters while it's still alive because it's safer for them then trying to kill it first. How could anyone witness something like that and think a deity that created it is good and loving?

 

So I'm curious those of you who think God created the world through evolution, what does that say about God? Do you think God was capable of creating a world without suffering and death? Do you think there will be suffering and death in heaven, if you believe in heaven? When the Bible says God will create a new earth, do you think that will actually happen and if so, will it also have suffering and death? Would that be ok with you?

 

We don't believe God created suffering. We believe the fall and it's consequences has allowed sin and destruction in this world. We as Christians suffer in this life, but are reconciled through Christ. Our souls are free from death, not our bodies. Just my opinion.

 

[LucyStoner]

In one it says that in his image God created Adam and Eve, "male and female he created them". At the same time. In the other it says that Adam was made but alone. God saw that it was not good for Adam to be alone and he brought him various animals but none were good enough to be Adam's companion and so he put Adam to sleep and fashioned Eve out of a rib (some creationists have told me this is why men have one less rib than women, which is just sad because men and women each have 24 ribs.)

 

That is not a slight variation and it has huge implications.

 

I am shocked that someone can say that they didn't know there were two creation stories until today but that by speaking to one single person they have formed an opinion on the matter. How does that even work? Don't you need to at least read the words yourself? I encourage people to read it for themselves and then decide.

 

 

I asked my dh about two different creation stories because I have never heard of this. He is an ordained minister. Our belief is that Genesis one and the first four verses of chp 2 capture all seven days of Creation, and the rest of chp 2 fleshes out the creation of Adam and especially of Eve. There are not two different creation stories from our understanding. Just wanted to throw in a different viewpoint.

[Freckles]

LucyStoner, I've been a Christian for over 30 years.  I can't even count the times I've read Genesis. This is not the first time I've spoken to my husband on issues of the Bible in the 17 years we've been married. And yes this is the first time I've ever heard of two Creation stories in my entire of life of attending Protestant churches, but I can assure you my opinion on the matter was already decided prior to speaking to him.  Adam was created before Eve, but he created them both. I've given birth to two children. They were born on different days. My understanding is not the same as your understanding, but I've been reading the Bible almost daily since I was nine.

[LucyStoner]

In one of the versions, it reads that man and woman were created at the same time,

in God's image. In one Adam is created in God's image and Eve is created from Adam later on.

This isn't the same story to me and it doesn't read that way at all. And that's just the two variations that made it into the Bible.

 

I noted this as a child, the very first time I read the Bible. I really have a hard time understanding how one couldn't know this if they are familiar with Genesis. This is in every version of the Bible I have ever read, Protestant and Catholic alike. You don't have to hear about it. It is there in black and white. Both cannot be 100% literally factual.

[Freckles]

I'm using the KJV. I'm not sure what version you are reading. Please reference what I stated earlier. Chp 1 summary, Chp 2 etc... details.

You might not understand my interpretation, but I don't understand yours. Again, I just added my two cents to throw in a different view point. I don't expect you to agree with me. Hopefully the next time you run into a Christian that is not familiar with the two creation story viewpoint you won't be quite as shocked.

[LucyStoner]

This is definitely in the KJV, which is only one version I have read.

 

 

KJV Gen 1:

 

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

Gen 2:

 

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

 

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

 

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

 

19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

 

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

 

21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

 

22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

[Freckles]

Looks like mine. Not sure where the confusion is. Chp 1 summary. Chp 2 details. Same account. We'll just have to agree to disagree as usual.

[milovany]

If all y'all are interested in a different look at this, the Cause and Origin issues in particular, here is a blog post that might be of interest.  It is from an Orthodox Christian priest.

 

http://glory2godforallthings.com/2014/02/06/evolution-creation-and-the-hidden-cause/

 

I guess this kind of gets to the way I have felt about this issue.  I'm trying to formulate a coherent presentation of what it is that speaks to me, but this will have to do until I can get my brain to do some actual work.  ;0)

 

Thank you for that link, Patty Joanna.  I really appreciated reading it.  Some of the priest in my life would advocate Fr. S's position so it was interesting to see that not all priests do. 

[LucyStoner]

Looks like mine. Not sure where the confusion is. Chp 1 summary. Chp 2 details. Same account. We'll just have to agree to disagree as usual.

How are those "the same"? In one humans are created at the same time, in the other woman is created from man. There are other differences as well, like Adam naming all the animals in one day.

[redsquirrel]

Looks like mine. Not sure where the confusion is. Chp 1 summary. Chp 2 details. Same account. We'll just have to agree to disagree as usual.

 

I was also taught that it is two stories. Just wanted to put it out there that she is not the only one.

[Molly]

In one of the versions, it reads that man and woman were created at the same time,

in God's image. In one Adam is created in God's image and Eve is created from Adam later on.

This isn't the same story to me and it doesn't read that way at all. And that's just the two variations that made it into the Bible.

 

 

In Chapter 1, it says man and woman were created, no mention of at the same time.  On the same day yes.  I agree it says in Chapter 2, Eve was created in Adam's image, however, being that Adam was created in God's image, Eve would have been also.

 

Chapter 1 is more of a summary of what was created each day, Chapter 2 gives specifics on what and how things were created on Day 6.  Why only Day 6 gets more specifics I don't know, but I choose to believe it is because mankind was made in God's image therefore a highlight of creation as a whole.

[Freckles]

In Chapter 1, it says man and woman were created, no mention of at the same time.  On the same day yes.  I agree it says in Chapter 2, Eve was created in Adam's image, however, being that Adam was created in God's image, Eve would have been also.

 

Chapter 1 is more of a summary of what was created each day, Chapter 2 gives specifics on what and how things were created on Day 6.  Why only Day 6 gets more specifics I don't know, but I choose to believe it is because mankind was made in God's image therefore a highlight of creation as a whole.

 

 

:iagree: Thank you, Molly for putting my thoughts into words.

[LucyStoner]

In Chapter 1, it says man and woman were created, no mention of at the same time. On the same day yes. I agree it says in Chapter 2, Eve was created in Adam's image, however, being that Adam was created in God's image, Eve would have been also.

.

If something needs to be specifically spelled out,

then why not the date? There's a lot that is asserted by YEC that is not specifically spelled out in Genesis, at all.

 

When I read "in his image he created them, male and female he created them" and then spoke to them, the impression to me is that it is the same time. No mention whatsoever of bringing Adam the animals to name (that would take more than 1 literal 24 hour day for sure). No mention of ribs. No men walking around with less than 24 ribs baring surgery or congenital defect.

[GSOchristie]

I've never heard of it as two different events, either, so maybe a difference between denominations?  It has been a long time since I had a theology class, but if I recall correctly, this is a common Jewish way to write.  To present an idea, then go back in the next passage and expound on it.  Genesis 1 was the broad overarching picture that set the stage, Genesis 2 goes back and talks about the special creation of man, with details.

[milovany]

How are those "the same"? In one humans are created at the same time, in the other woman is created from man....

 

I'm not seeing it either, Katie. They're not mutually exclusive. Genesis one doesn't say God created Adam and Eve at the exact same time; just that He created both of them and had plans to do that from the beginning.  My husband and  I planned to have a large family from the start and created all seven of our children, but not all at once. It could say somewhere of us, "So [milovany and mr. milovany] created [children] in their own image, in the image of [m/m] created [they] [them]; male and female created [they][them]." The creation of our kiddos happened over the course of 15 years, but we did create them all. 

 

But Orthodox Christianity doesn't have the Bible as the sole foundation, so arguing Scripture doesn't work well to begin with and I apologize if it seems like that's what I'm doing.  For us, faith is more about what we do and live, not what we read and study. 

[LucyStoner]

I'm not seeing it either, Katie. They're not mutually exclusive. Genesis one doesn't say God created Adam and Eve at the exact same time; just that He created both of them and had plans to do that from the beginning.  My husband and I created all seven of our children and planned to have a large family from the start. It could say somewhere of us, "So [milovany and mr. milovany] created [children] in their own image, in the image of [m/m] created [they] [them]; male and female created [they][them]." The creation of our kiddos happened over the course of 15 years, but we did create them all. 

 

I am hardly the only person to read the bible and considers this two different accounts and certainly anyone who is truly well versed in Genesis knows that this debate (1 or 2 accounts?) exists and didn't just hear about it today. 

[magnificent_baby]

Most YEC's I know don't regard it as a salvation issue, per se. I think for a lot of them, it has more to do with the authority of scripture. If you can take the creation account in Genesis (which presents itself in the form of a historical narrative, whether it is or not) as metaphorical, you can do the same thing with other historical passages. Which becomes a problem, especially when you get to the gospels. It's one of those "slippery slopes" we're always hearing about.

 

ETA: I have not as yet picked a side in the YEC/OEC debate -- like someone said in one of the other threads, I'm a "Middle Earther"! :D

 

 

 

[Freckles]

I am hardly the only person to read the bible and consider this two accounts and certainly anyone who is truly well versed in Genesis knows that this debate (1 or 2 accounts?) exists and didn't just hear about it today. 

 

 I never said other people didn't believe in two accounts; I said I had never heard of it before. I'm telling the truth. I've never heard of it in 30 years of church attendance.