A reinterpretation of the Creation Account

You can play all kinds of games and use all kinds of metal gymnastics to try to square the Genesis 1 creation story with observed facts. But that still leaves the problem that there is not one creation story but two mutually exclusive stories in Genesis. To handle that requires yet more kludging.Isn't it more reasonable to simply acknowledge that the accounts were written in two different eras by two different peoples using the wisdom and idiom of their times?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Which did not address any of the issues I brought up.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

All of the early civilizations that I know of have some form of Creation Myth. The question of why there is a universe (or world or neighborhood) is a reasonable and common one.But they are all simply speculation by people of a given era using the knowledge, idiom and experience of their age, written for people of that era. Why not just accept them for what they aree, myth? Why try to shoehorn them into some modern understanding?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, let me try to answer these for you.Yes, when a theory is shown to be wrong it should be modified or replaced.But your addendum is where I think part of the problem lies. There are three things here. First, Evolution and the Theory of Evolution do not deny the spiritual. They don't even touch on it. That's why almost every major Christian Sect has come out in favor of teaching the TOE and are opposed to the teaching of Classic Creationism.Second, there is nothing in either Evolution or the TOE that conflict with religion, particularly Christianity. That's why in addition to the major churches, you find individuals here and at other boards who are Evolutionists and Christians.Third, there is a vast body of supporting evidence for both evolution and the TOE. There is no supporting evidence for even a reinterpreted Creation Account. There is no evidence for changed timeframes, moving parts of the universe around, various light speeds, various decay rates, selective suspension of the rules. It is all but speculation.Certainly you can believe anything you wish. I have never said someone should not. But to support your belief it helps to have something other than wild speculation, and that's all that I have ever seen from any classic creationists.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am a practicing Christian. Your hypothesis is falsified.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, I believe that the Universe is at least tens of billions of years old.I belive life started as a simple critter and evolved over billions of years to what we see today.I believe that life will continue to evolve and that long after humans are gone and forgotten, other critters will evolve.I believe that GOD created the Universe and the rules that direct it, including the wonderous system called evolution.I believe that evolution is not directed, is random in nature, is filtered though Natural Selection and that those filters will also be random in nature though specific to a given period.If you have other questions, please feel free to ask. If I'm not here it's because if I don't go to the grocery store I won't eat tonight.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, Religious Beliefs covers a very large area, certainly far more than we could cover in a short discussion and would take us way outside the topic.But if you have some specific questions, I have some time before I have to get to the store. I'll make a cup of coffee and you can ask away.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't. Nor does that necessarily follow.Why do we need original sin? Aren't we more than capable of sinning afresh? "Enough of this old sin, bring me some new sin", to parapharse Steve Martin from the Jerk.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I have to go to the store now, but my feeling on the Gap revision of the Genesis stories is simply not needed. All that's needed is to understand that they are Creation Myths, told in the idom of the time with the knowledge of the time to an audience of the time.Post any other questions you might have and I'll catch up in an hour or so.It's about Oporto time there, maybe I can join you in one when I get back.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, I don't see the implications of such an action.Where did I say there was no sin?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes. All of those things are there. I do not dispute that. It's rather what is being said.People die because death is a normal part of life. It has nothing to do with sin, original or otherwise.It happened even before the Garden of Eden, is happening now and will likely be true in the future. Sorry but I don't think that is what the story in Genesis is about at all.But I see no reason for the concept of Original Sin. Start a thread on that and we can discuss it at length.We're getting far afield. What does this have to do with the OP?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion