Creation Story

I’ve been a Christian for 22 years (since the age of 25) and learned a lot over the years. The past two years I’ve been rethinking the Genesis creation story, as I’ve always been trying to understand the Bible more in its historical context. I post my change of understanding to others for dialogue.

I began at 25 yrs old with churches that were young earth creationists (10k yrs at most), who were influenced by Answers In Genesis (Ken Ham), who read modern YEC science into scripture, and everything in those 7 days in a literal and modern way. I’ve since abandoned YEC and a modern interpretation, yet retained a literal real Adam, biblical inerrancy and inspiration, and now see the Genesis creation story as myth, not myth as falsehood, but a form of communication that brought in a real historical people, Adam and Eve, but a story more specifically telling the people of Israel who they were in the world (from beginning to their present).

I’ve also changed my thinking in the area of cosmology. I see the cosmology in the Bible as ancient, not modern. It makes more sense. I find YEC ministries force their modern scientific views into scripture, which is interesting because they don’t do the same for the Bible’s ancient biology. This isn’t a problem for me as it pertains to inerrancy because God in my understanding allowed the shared ancient culture view of an ancient cosmology and communicated certain things despite it. I see Genesis as communicating theological messages, not modern science.

I’m not an evolutionist or scientist. But I’ve been studying the ANE ancient near eastern world and it’s fascinating. Ive learned about the many similarities and differences between Israel and surrounding cultures, and they all shared cultural views on a number of things and disagreed on many other things.

Has anyone else taken this road?

Welcome!

This slippery slope may lead to believing that the whole Bible is a "myth".

Modern science-so-called is the myth, my friend.

Why? What caused your slippage? Do you not understand who the prince and power of the air is? Do you question the broad scope of His influence?

Ken Ham is not a fool. You should look into what influenced him. He did not invent His own science. He just believed the Word of God.

>

If you haven't been listening to Michael S. Heiser, I would recommend him to you. I don't agree with his position on Genesis, or yours, but I suspect you will find his perspective refreshing. Check out drmsh.com or "The Naked Bible Podcast" on YouTube.

Welcome to CC! Meaty stuff for your first post here.

What other "stories" have you been rethinking?

All but 8 humans and the selected animals on the Ark destroyed by a worldwide Flood?

Samson single handedly killing 1000 Philistines, at one time, with the jawbone of an axe?

A donkey talking to Balaam?

3 men surviving in a firey furnace?

Jonah swallowed by a whale, only to be spat alive onshore 3 days later?



Jesus the Messiah dying, and 3 days later resurrected?


just to name a few....

You see, this is the MASSIVE danger with not taking the Word for what it says. We end up picking and choosing the accounts we like, and those we want to call allegory, or metaphor.

I agree with you on the point that Genesis is not modern science, but theological message. Science studies God's creation, how things function, whereas the Bible is a guide towards re-uniting with God. It tells you how man got separated from God because of sin and death, how Jesus Christ reconciled those who believe with God, and how, in the end, everything which we believe and confess, will be made manifest and the entire Cosmos will be renewed.

You gain more knowledge of God if you genuinely believe the story of Genesis, than if you intellectualize it and become too savant about it. Intelligence is not a path towards God, but towards pride; pride is the sin that most separate men from God. Honesty and humility are the virtues that shortcut the distance between God and us.

Yes. Thank you. Heiser was the first scholar that opened the door to think more deeply about this.

Thank you all for posting. I understand how this appears to those that disagree. I’ve been there. Maybe I should take a step back and mention one thing, so as to not deal with 50 things at once. Worldview. I’ve learned the ancient near eastern people, including the Israelites, all swam in the same cultural river. There were some things the Israelites swam against the stream on, while other things they shared.

Today, in our modern day, as Christians, we too share cultural ideas with our neighbors, but also have differences. But, our cultural views today are very different from that of people in the ancient near East.

This was one example I found. Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” First, I’ve always been taught this was the ultimate beginning of all beginnings, that there was never anything created prior to this beginning, until day 1. Second, God spoke creation of days 1-6 into existence from nothing. Third, heaven means the three heavens of sky, space, and heaven where God’s throne is; also earth refers to the spherical planet, our planet.

However, Gen.1:2 seems to show a crack in the first interpretation I presented. Verse 2 shows there was something, not nothing. I believe God made everything, but that days 1-6 was creation, not out of nothing, but something already existing. I do believe God did speak things into existence out of nothing, but Gen.1. doesn’t seem to fit that. This sheds light of the second interpretation or understanding I mentioned as likewise not fitting. Third, I think about our modern understanding of heaven and earth, but was it the same for an ancient people? I don’t want to impose my understanding of earth (I.e. a round planet, moving) upon an ancient people who may have had a very different way of thinking. So, how did they think about this? Heaven = sky, earth = land. They thought differently. Even the separation of the waters above from waters below was separated by a firmament, a solid “firm” dome like structure that would have held back the waters above. The Israelites shared this idea with other cultures. Ideas very different from our modern day. Another very different idea is the lights of the sun and moon. We moderns think of the sun as a burning ball of gas. The moon a large rock that orbits our planet. The ancient people didn’t think this way. Light was a natural phenomenon. Light was also immaterial. Therefore, from their ancient perspective, the light of the sun wouldn’t have been thought of as a material creation, but for us moderns, it would. The reflection of the sun upon the moon where the moon provides light, again wouldn’t have been thought of as material, for light was immaterial.

I’ll stop here. What are your thoughts?

I understand your concern. However, this is a jump in logic. Rethinking doesn’t mean necessarily I’m rejecting. It also doesn’t mean all things will be rethought. What I’ve been rethinking is interpretation. What the Bible says and how people understand it can be very different. Proper understanding requires more then an understanding of words, but culture and context. We understand earth as planet, round, moving. The ancient people did not, earth= land, flat, with corners. We understand the seat of emotions to be our brain and mind. The ancient people of Israel thought it was the intestines. They had no word for brain. They had a different understanding of human biology. Should we force our modern view of biology into the text to make it seem the ancient Israelites thought like us?

I’m trying to let scripture be what it is. God used an people, ancient from us, to communicate certain things despite some of their understanding.

Hello and Welcome rbaitz. Unfortunately the above sentence tells us that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Trying to have it both ways, which is delusional.

So if the Bible is divinely inspired, and therefore inerrant, the only LOGICAL conclusion is that the creation account is totally (1) accurate, (2) factual, (3) historical, and (4) theologically critical. If there was a real literal Adam, then the label of "myth" is total nonsense. And we know that there was a real, literal Adam because he is important for New Testament Gospel truth and also doctrinal truth. Had Adam not sinned, there would have been no need for the Gospel.

There are many who stumble at the fact that Genesis 2 is a continuation of Genesis 1 (with the focus on Adam and Eve). Some even hold to the bizarre notion that Adam was created after the 7th day! However, Genesis 1 is simply an overview which mentions that humankind was created on day 6. Genesis 2 goes into more detail, and also speaks of God as "the LORD God" rather than simply "God". That is because God established a personal relationship with Adam and Eve immediately.

Yes... the something that was created in verse one.

We have seen how some wish to make more of this.

Right off the bat, what is written is not accepted.

By verse two, people are adding to what is written.

Please don’t jump to conclusions. I find to many of my brothers and sisters bear false witness through false insinuations and accusations. It isn’t right.

You said, “Right off the bat, what is written is not accepted.” Please try maybe asking a question to gain a better understanding of where or what I’m saying. I haven’t refused to accept what is written. I haven’t denied scripture but rather some interpretation.
A lot of scholars and pastors know and teach Gen1:1 is an introduction to the reader of Genesis 1 as a whole. There is valid and known theological differences where some understand 1:1 to be referring to days 1-7. Heavens = Sky, Earth = land. The dry land didn’t appear till v9. and sky wasn’t formed until the firmament was put in place and the waters above and below were separated. If Gen 1:1 speaks in this way then it isn’t about verse 2 but introduced the creation within days 1-7.

I find it more helpful to deal with the ideas rather than making accusations. This would make for better conversation.

Please us the REPLY when responding to a specific person's post so we may all know whom you are addressing.

What I said is true whether it applies to you or not. Somehow you found it offensive.

Your insinuations are false while you complain about the same.

There’s actually several views of inerrancy if you look into it. The fundamentalist view I once held forced me to see scripture in a particular way, and if I didn’t interpret it to where it met my inerrancy, my interpretation would have been the problem. When I read the ancient human biology perspectives in scripture that differs from our modern understanding, I had to alter my interpretation to fit my inerrancy, otherwise my inerrancy would condemn the Bible (that is if everything in scripture wasn’t true in every way as my inerrancy view claimed, then it could have made me question scripture). But I don’t question scripture, rather I question interpretation and some inerrancy views. As for inerrancy I side with Dr. Michael Bird. You can look up his perspective which is a high view of scripture.

Your points above many if not all of the early church fathers whom the reformers depended on, would disagree in part. I’m reading through a book on the early church fathers on Genesis right now. Early Christian Readings of Genesis One: Patristic Exegesis and Literal Interpretation (BioLogos Books on Science and Christianity) https://a.co/d/j9dcwKn

Maybe it be better to start with Genesis 1:1? What y’all think?

i think you could be one who accepts the Lucifer Flood Theory and ties Jeremiah to Genesis 1:2.

i don't know or feel that you accept the views of Science, rather than the views of Genesis 1:1 is a completed Earth with life and Genesis 1:2 shows what Jeremiah 4 explains as a people destroyed and the Earth demolished.

but then again, you could be mixing several theories into your own personal belief.

Ok. But you didn’t answer if you believed, as written, those accounts I listed. Such as Noah, Samson, Jonah etc…

I believe they were real people in a real history. I believe the stories. Just as I believe in a historical Adam.

I’m sorry but I have no idea what you’re talking about.