Agnostic Forums - View Single Post

Preacherman · 04-04-2008, 10:13 AM

It's interesting to me that so many of you could state a feeling as a reason for denying a six day creation. I'm a Christian, with a fairly literal understanding of Scripture, so as you can imagine I've had to think about what I believe and why I believe it.

Just one thing for you to consider... Generally when we read the creation story we get the Idea that Adam was created and was probably not a baby, right. Probably something like 30 years old. Interestingly he was created with apparent age. So my understanding stems out of this... the earth was created with apparent age, the universe intact. So those stars that we see that are millions of light years away, were placed there perhaps 6000 years ago, I'm not going to quibble. Could there not be a fossil record and an "aged earth" created with a history and past that did not literally exist? I know its not something that you will like, but I think it provides epistemic permission to believe this could be the case and thereby would refute claims that the six day creation is factually wrong.

The second thing mentioned in this seems to be making an issue of the "J (E, D) and P" stories of Genesis 1 and 2. Generally speaking Wellhausen has been losing favor since around 1960, but outside the field his theories are still seen as the standard. That said the reality that chapters 1 and 2 could be seen as different stories needs to be addressed.

I don't think that the order you propose is necessarily the way the text needs to be read. 2:19 when the animals are brought into the story it says the animals the "had" been made were brought to him (NASB has formed). Past tense could put their creation prior to their arrival in the naming line (as I saw it as a kid and still like that image) 2:8 says that the Adam was placed in the garden God had made... so while right before 2:7 it talks about how nothing had yet grown up we see that the man on his formation was placed in a garden, vegetation had been created.

The interesting thing about the passage and why I think my interpretation may not be correct is in 2:4 it uses the same word YOM to describe a week as it does for each individual day. Therefore I assume iin the context it doesn't necessarily mean the day as we have it now, or even the way day is used consistently in the Bible after the creation passages.

04-04-2008, 10:13 AM	#35 (permalink)
Preacherman Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 20	It's interesting to me that so many of you could state a feeling as a reason for denying a six day creation. I'm a Christian, with a fairly literal understanding of Scripture, so as you can imagine I've had to think about what I believe and why I believe it. Just one thing for you to consider... Generally when we read the creation story we get the Idea that Adam was created and was probably not a baby, right. Probably something like 30 years old. Interestingly he was created with apparent age. So my understanding stems out of this... the earth was created with apparent age, the universe intact. So those stars that we see that are millions of light years away, were placed there perhaps 6000 years ago, I'm not going to quibble. Could there not be a fossil record and an "aged earth" created with a history and past that did not literally exist? I know its not something that you will like, but I think it provides epistemic permission to believe this could be the case and thereby would refute claims that the six day creation is factually wrong. The second thing mentioned in this seems to be making an issue of the "J (E, D) and P" stories of Genesis 1 and 2. Generally speaking Wellhausen has been losing favor since around 1960, but outside the field his theories are still seen as the standard. That said the reality that chapters 1 and 2 could be seen as different stories needs to be addressed. I don't think that the order you propose is necessarily the way the text needs to be read. 2:19 when the animals are brought into the story it says the animals the "had" been made were brought to him (NASB has formed). Past tense could put their creation prior to their arrival in the naming line (as I saw it as a kid and still like that image) 2:8 says that the Adam was placed in the garden God had made... so while right before 2:7 it talks about how nothing had yet grown up we see that the man on his formation was placed in a garden, vegetation had been created. The interesting thing about the passage and why I think my interpretation may not be correct is in 2:4 it uses the same word YOM to describe a week as it does for each individual day. Therefore I assume iin the context it doesn't necessarily mean the day as we have it now, or even the way day is used consistently in the Bible after the creation passages.