What do you believe? (Part 1)

[ScottBarger]

So, I thought I would take the theological temperature of the other Christians on this forum by posting a series of questions. My first question is this:
What do you think about the Hebrew Cosmology (Genesis creation story)?

I am not really looking for a complicated debate, just what each of you think about the topic.

[JustJim]

What do you think about the Hebrew Cosmology (Genesis creation story)?

As an unbelievably enormous over-generalization and simplification (<== disclaimer), I think it's a myth, based on a faulty (though common) misunderstanding of the nature of God, understandably confused in the minds of primitive, unlearned people by the erroneous assignment of cause-and-effect relationships connecting human behaviors and naturally occurring events (so that when I tell a lie and it thunders, I see it as nature (God) "talking to me" somehow, rather than coincidence), as well as an incorporation of previously existing tribal creation stories and traditions. I don't think it has anything to do with how the universe came into being, what God is "really" like, what humans are "really" like, the establishment of morality, any "fall" of humankind, etc., etc., etc. I don't even think it's a nice story that we can all learn from, since it paints an incorrect picture of humanity as inherently evil ("sinful"), deserving of the wrath of God that can only be assuaged by an atoning death 'salvation' blood-sacrifice of a firstborn son to a kind of God that would be so evil and corrupt and abusive of power as to set things up like that in the first place. It leads to exclamations like, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, a sinner" or, in a Catholic Confessional, "Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned" from otherwise normal, good, moral people doing their best to live a decent life and follow universally accepted standards like the Golden Rule (and many others), but sometimes (maybe frequently) discover they're not perfect - just human.

And who you callin' "bitter"?

Jim

[ScottBarger]

You should try to me more direct Jim, don't beat around the bush so much. are you saying that the Hebrew Cosmology might not be history? *gasp*

[JustJim]

You should try to me more direct Jim, don't beat around the bush so much. are you saying that the Hebrew Cosmology might not be history? *gasp*

LOL! No, I'm not saying Hebrew Cosmology might not be history... I'm saying it IS not history, and that's a given . But more than that, I'm also saying it's not a very good story upon which to base one's life and values, which isn't so much a "given"....

Jim

[Rian]

I think it's probably pretty much what happened, with some allowances for bad memory. But I think it's close enough that when we finally get to see the rerun we'll recognize it. Kind of like a skilled artist making a copy of a DaVinci work - not the same, but recognizable.

And I think that the main goal was to get across basic truths (God created the universe; we're the ones that broke the fellowship with God; God desires fellowship with us and took it upon himself to come up with ways to regain that fellowship, etc. etc.), not specific, exact details - IOW, how ancient histories typically are written, from what I've read.

[mikedsjr]

I believe the creation story is literal and true as it happened. I also trust science data is true and accurate and that the Bible and science are not contradicting each other. I also believe the YECers are trying to be genuine, but genuinely very misguided.

I agree with rian that the man goal was to give basic truths, but at the same time, God's hand was in the writings and accurately representing what happened. Given the proper contextual understanding and continuing understanding of scientific data, the Bible will continue to unfold the creation story in a manner that tells us a very easy to understand reality of what God did.

[ScottBarger]

A couple of quick questions to keep the discussion going:

1) Jim, if a story is myth, does that mean it can not be history?

2) Others, what if the truths the writer was trying to communicate had nothing to do with history (like the story of the boy who cried wolf)?

I'll be adding a synopsis of my own view in the near future. (I know y'all can't wait).

[whoosanightowl]

Scott wrote:

what if the truths the writer was trying to communicate had nothing to do with history (like the story of the boy who cried wolf)?

I think there could be a moral to the story being told, and although there may be truth in the moral, the story itself is still not true no matter how good it sounds or convincing it may be or how many people who hear it believe it is true because they heard it from someone they trust or it's become very popular to believe it literally.

[JustJim]

Jim, if a story is myth, does that mean it can not be history?

Yes.

Jim

[ScottBarger]

Jim, if a story is myth, does that mean it can not be history?

Yes.

Jim

Then we probably disagree on the definition/form/function of myth within the A.N.E.

No biggie, I just think that one of the characteristics of myth (and specifically cosmological mythology in the ancient Near East) is that the truth of the story is independent from the historicity of the story.

[TheFonz]

I am going to go a different way on this one. If a Christian can dismiss the Genesis account of creation, it will weaken the authority of the Bible. While I know there are some theologians out there that like to pick and choose what they believe from the Bible, I am not sure that is a wise interpretation of scripture.
Perhaps the account of creation is figurative or some sort of parable, but it is presented as truth, just as the rest of the Septuagint.

[mikedsjr]

Fonz, I agree.

As rian has pointed out before, worldviews plays a huge role in how information is interpreted. Science is helping us understand the bible more and more, regarding how to interpret genesis 1-11, and I certainly believe it all to be true. I don't have a problem with atheist scientist and the job they are doing. The issue becomes the point when our worldview clashes with their completely different worldview. The problem on our hands is that atheist only see christians with one interpretation of genesis, which is from the young earth POV, which is unfortunate. And they only attack from that stance. Partly that is because there are too few voices defending an old earth Creationist POV. I would try, but that's all I can do. Try. I'm not equipped enough to have it memorized enough to spout it off as if I'm in the loop and the forefront of it all, but I do enjoy learning about it. And frankly Young Earth creationism is still a huge belief. And I think it is sad.

[JustJim]

I am going to go a different way on this one. If a Christian can dismiss the Genesis account of creation, it will weaken the authority of the Bible.

I strongly disagree, Fonz. I don't think you have to dismiss Genesis if you accept it as something other than a factual, blow-by-blow, historical account of the actual way the universe, the earth, and life as we know it (including ourselves) came into being. I think dismissing it as a literal account of those things should only lend credibility (or, as you view it, "authority") to the Bible, and tremendously strengthen it as a serious work of literature to be respected by those who hold it in "reverence". Insisting on taking the Genesis account of creation literally, in the face of the nearly limitless oceans of evidence to the contrary (evidence which, I might add, some consider to be the only trustworthy revelation from God there is and the only revelation needed), truly weakens the credibility of its believers - if not of the Bible itself.

Hanging onto a literal interpretation of the creation story in Genesis is not very much unlike continuing to believe in Santa Claus after your parents tell you there is no such thing, and watching them go shopping, bring home the presents, wrap them, and place them under the tree - without ever observing any "Santa" doing those things. You can stop believing in Santa Claus without giving up your belief in the reality of Christmas underlying the Santa story - which some might say is far greater than Santa....

Jim

[mikedsjr]

The problem I have with what you said Jim, is you rely to heavily on the Young Earth position in your argument, imo, as well as probably a atheistic (in nature) worldview of interpreting science data with no god involved. There is no other way to interpret the bible than God heavily involved in creation and heavily involved in humanity and Adam being a real first person created in the image of God. I've set it before, there are groups that are putting together models based on the bible as to how the universe began, in an Old Earth Creationism format. But I would not expect atheists to begin to even attempt to look it scientifically seriously yet. They won't because they involve God. And that alone is a thorn in their side.

So your argument about equating Santa clause with the creation event is bad to me. Just like I hear atheist say there are things that they can't explain right now, but beleive science will eventually help explain them more clearly to make their case. I believe the same thing with the creation event of the bible, which I believe are already occuring. For me, science has only made me feel stronger about my faith. It hasn't at all weakened it. Mainly because my belief is not skewed by the atheist worldview that seems to control the science circles today, which doesn't even consider God and how what He did. And I certainly do believe in the inerrancy of scripture.

Jim, on a side note, can you help me understand what you believe about God? Do you really think God just created and left? And where did He go?

[Mr. Sluagh]

I've set it before, there are groups that are putting together models based on the bible as to how the universe began, in an Old Earth Creationism format.

See, the problem here is the starting point. If you're putting together a model "based on the Bible", you're starting with the assumption that the Bible is authoritative and then trying to find empirical evidence to justify it, rather than relying on empirical evidence alone. Now, if you found information that coincided with the Bible by analyzing empirical data when you hadn't been looking for such a correspondence, that would be another thing.