Questions for theistic evolutionists

[nightbringer]

Amen to your post. Why do people put God in a box? From my research of rabbinical views, the Creation Story is just that, a story.

If the original author of Genesis intended the account convey a literal six day creation, holding to a young-earth interpretation would not be "putting God in a box", it would be correct exegesis. If there are good exegetical reasons to take the account as a story like you say, then so be it.

[justsumguy]

If the author of Genesis intended the account convey a literal six day creation, the earth orbiting around the sun should have been the first day instead of the fourth. Genesis 1 always looked like abstract art to me. I was reading it when I was seven and I have never suspected it to be literal. From 7 to 19, I always assumed there was great mystery in that chapter.

I guess I was a heretic from an early age.

[mostlyharmless]

some literal truth about cosmology based on the Exodus passage's logic.

Well if that's your belief then you are always going to have problems because reality does not coincide with a literal reading of genesis

So, because there wasn't any of what we would call historical or scientific writings, the ancients were incapable of writing things that they intended to convey as literal truth when it comes to how the universe came about? I don't have to write a science textbook to write something that intends to convey truths about the material world. Consideration of literary genres are important but there isn't a black and white line between the kind of truths that can be expressed in scientific/historical writings and whatever else.

I agree there isn't a black and white line, and this is obvious in the manner in which Genesis moves from the mythic toward the historical. But modern scientific writing emphasis is on literal provable truth while ancient cosmological writings were not focused on this at all, instead forming patterns and explanations that supported customs and manner of life of the culture they come from. The creation story in Genesis is perhaps most appropriately read this way and as a polemic against the pagan polytheistic religions around Israel. It is very hard to ascertain if the author intended any literal cosmology at all, and even if he did these secondary aspects of the text do not agree with reality.

Blessings

[nightbringer]

If the author of Genesis intended the account convey a literal six day creation, the earth orbiting around the sun should have been the first day instead of the fourth. Genesis 1 always looked like abstract art to me. I was reading it when I was seven and I have never suspected it to be literal. From 7 to 19, I always assumed there was great mystery in that chapter.

I guess I was a heretic from an early age.

Why do you think the Sun ought to have been made on the first day? Is God incapable of creating light without the Sun?

[nightbringer]

Well if that's your belief then you are always going to have problems because reality does not coincide with a literal reading of genesis

I don't see this as a persuasive argument against YEC exegesis. A literal reading could be the correct reading, and the earth could be old, meaning that Genesis would contain falsehood. Your trying to fit Genesis with what you see as reality doesn't mean you're reading Genesis correctly. If Genesis is literal and false we need to be honest and say that inerrancy is wrong, or even that Christianty is wrong. But if there are good exegetical reasons to believe Genesis (and the Bible as a whole) is compatible with evolution then so be it.

I agree there isn't a black and white line, and this is obvious in the manner in which Genesis moves from the mythic toward the historical. But modern scientific writing emphasis is on literal provable truth while ancient cosmological writings were not focused on this at all, instead forming patterns and explanations that supported customs and manner of life of the culture they come from. The creation story in Genesis is perhaps most appropriately read this way and as a polemic against the pagan polytheistic religions around Israel. It is very hard to ascertain if the author intended any literal cosmology at all, and even if he did these secondary aspects of the text do not agree with reality.

Blessings

I don't see Jesus, the apostles, or anyone else in Scripture taking Genesis to be anything less than literal history. Certainly we need to believe that Adam and Eve were historical figures.

[justsumguy]

Why do you think the Sun ought to have been made on the first day? Is God incapable of creating light without the Sun?

Because a 24 hour period is based on the earth and sun. It appears as if (notice the word "appears") the sun was created on the fourth day.

We're not talking about the speed of light here. We're talking about a literal 24 hour day.

Sure, God is capable of creating everything in 24 hour periods without there being 24 periods. God could create the entire universe out of a giraffe that doesn't exist.

I'm simply speaking of supposedly literal interpretation. God made something on the first day, the second day and the third day before there was a day (and no...I'm not talking about light).