A reinterpretation of the Creation Account

As has been discussed in: The Gap Theory Examined, the common interpretation of the creation account can be reinterpreted so as to include the idea of a gap between Genisis 1:1 and 1:2.This gap between verses can be used to demonstrate that the earth is old, among other scientifically verifiable evidence.The topic at hand was "off-topic" in the Science Forum since we were discussing the biblical interpretation / validity of such a theory, I would like to propose that it be continued in a more appropriate forum.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 08-02-2005 08:27 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum. I took the liberty of giving a link to the original thread; hit the "peek" button to see the codes used.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 08-02-2005 08:30 AM

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

deleted due to error in postingThis message has been edited by sidelined, Tue, 2005-08-02 08:50 AM

Jor-el Just to continue our discussion where it left off now that we have a proper thread for it.

What I usually hear when discussing Genesis with Old Earth Creationists is "Who's to say how long a 'day' represents in that context. A day could mean 5 million years now."I feel that this is another form of mental gymnastics, as Jar so eloquently put it.This message has been edited by dsv, Tuesday, August 02, 2005 11:09 AM

Jar,Mental Gymnastics is something I usually do to keep my mind sharp. It is using the gray matter in our heads that allows us to avoid becoming old and set in our ways, which is trait of old age.As age sets in we think that we know all that there is to know so now we can relax. Not a good trait for a bible scholar.As we all know, the bible can be interpreted in different ways by different people and since this theory has been around for a very long time, long before the issue of evolution or age of the earth became fashionable, and is accepted in many circles of christianity as well as Judaism, it isn't for me to say that this is one of those times when mental gymnastics is called for, just an open mind.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Hi dsv,I haven't had the pleasure of speaking with you before but I have read many of your posts, quite insightful.The references in Genisis 1 to a day are exactly what they seem to be when reading them. Single days of 24 hours each.The interpretation of this text (in the present context) has no similarities to the Day-Age Theory

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There are 3 points I would like to bring to your attention.1. This is incomplete since the above statement was written while interpreting the content / context of Genisis 1:1 As can be seen from the verse, God created the Heavens and the Earth in Genesis 1. Before I continue let me explain the full meaning of verse 1 [07225] re'shiyth: "In the beginning". This isn't the correct translation of the original text. This is because english and most other modern languages don't have an adequate term to state the meaning clearly. As I stated before the idea is more clearly expressed as "In a former state". The idea being that there was really no beginning or a starting point.r'shyth. "ray-sheeth" - the first in place, time or rank. Translated "beginning". "Reshiyth" does not mean the second or moment that something begins, it indicates a period of time at the start, it could mean one second as in the Big Bang, six days, or even 4.5 billion years.I'll add an extra bit for you since maybe I wasn't clear: This period of time can thus be understood to be "the beginning".
_____________________________________________________________[0430]'elohiym: "God". Again the english text is not transmiting the whole idea. 1st the hebrew term for God in this verse is "Elohim" which literally means "Gods" in the plural, this directly refers to the plurality of the Godhead (the three in one / the Holy Trinity). This specific word Elohim is mentioned in the O.T. in dozens of different places (239 times). ___________________________________________________________________[01254]bara': "Created" is also problematic as can be seen in previous posts of the "The Gap Theory Examined" thread. Even though in current spoken english, the words may be synonomous, that is certainly not the case for the original text in hebrew where a purposful distinction is made between the two words "Bara" and "asah". ____________________________________________________________________[08064]shamayim: "Heavens" - Heaven, visible heavens, sky (as in clouds in the sky), as abode of the stars, Heaven (as the abode of God), as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc.[0776]'erets: "earth" - land, earth, whole earth (as opposed to a part), earth (as opposed to heaven), earth (inhabitants), lands as in countries, soil and ground.So, this is what we can conclude from this verse:a. The heavens and earth being the spiritual and physical elements of creation. "Heavens" can be taken to mean all the spiritual creation of the angels and later demons, as well as the city of heaven. "Earth can be taken to mean the physical part of creation i.e. the physical universe.b. The heavens and earth in the traditional form of understanding. "Heavens" being the sun, stars, galaxies, the physical universe and "Earth" being the planet we live on.
__________________________________________________________________So if the heavens and the earth had already been created in verse 1 why try to put the creation of light in verse 3? Doesn't the sun shine and give light as well as the stars?If so, how can we have light being created in verse 3?
How can he have created the moon and the sun in verse 16?Answer: He didn't, they had already been created in verse 1.
__________________________________________________________________I said that there were 3 points that I wanted to brig to your attention. Here's the second.2. Since when do the words "Let there be..." mean that something has been created ex-nihlo. "Let there be" can easily be interpreted "let something become visible".That would mean that light wasn't created in v3 but became visible through the firmament.In verses 14-16 the moon sun and stars weren't created but became visible again through the firmament.
__________________________________________________________________3. The word firmament can also mean the sky, an expanse as well as heaven. I think the same word can be applied to significantly different ideas in this case, just as with Portuguese this can be clearly seen since the word "cu" means both the sky, heavens above and the city of heaven. Just what type of firmament is being referred to in the different verses in Genisis 1? Do they all mean heaven?So what I stated in the beginning holds true. There is a gap of undetermined time between verse 1 and verse 2.The 1st part of the the gap deals with the creation of the universe and the earth. The act of creation itself was ex-nihlo (from nothing) but from that moment onwards the galaxies came slowly into existence as well as the earth later on. As it is commonly thought the universe is at least 10 billion to 20 billion years old and the earth is thought to be around 4.5 billion years old. Life on earth is thought to have started about 3.5 billion years ago. Homo Sapiens is supposed to have come into being around 50 000 to 100 000 years ago (the dates are still being debated on this issue)So let's put it this way, the account of Genesis 1 could have happened at any time between these disputed dates of the sudden and surprising emergence of homo sapiens, where at the same time a major and catastrophic global disturbance took place. I can give an example of such an occurrence.About 74,000 years ago, Toba erupted and ejected almost three times as much volcanic ash as the most recent major Yellowstone eruption (Lava Creek, 630,000 years ago) and about 12 percent more than Yellowstone's largest eruption (Huckleberry Ridge, 1.8 million years ago). That comes to several thousand times more material than erupted from Mount St. Helens in 1980.Some researchers suspect that Toba's super eruption and the global cold spell it triggered might explain a mystery in the human genome. Our genes suggest we all come from a few thousand people just tens of thousands of years ago, instead of from a much older, bigger lineage as the fossil evidence testifies. Both could be true if only a few small groups of humans survived the cold years following the Toba eruption. Super VolcanoesAs such, verse 2 onwards describes a Recreation or rather a "Restoration" of the earth
____________________________________________________________________P.S. - Just for fun and I mean to imply nothing by pasting this link, see this book on speculative "archeology". Forbidden Archeology

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

OOps, Sorry about that, I wasn't paying the attention that I should have been. I totally agree with you, I even stated once in another thread that there might have been over a dozen accounts by different peoples over a long period of time and that these accounts may even have influenced and modified each other as they spread. But that isn't the point.We have two and only two accounts that are accepted as scripture and are thus in the bible. The decision to use these 2 particular accounts was made thousands of years ago and as such it is a "fait accompli" an accomplished fact which none of us can do anything about, so why try?The reason these two were picked and not others, rests in the fact that when the choice was made, they were deemed to be the most reliable and probably the most ancient of all the existing accounts. In other words God had a hand in the choice and influenced the person who actually made the choice.As for there being two accounts, why not?Each deals with a specific sphere of influence as it relates to mankind. The 1st dealing in a general overeview of creation and the 2nd dealing specifically with mankind.Do you think there might have been an account that dealt with the creation of birds and how these events influenced birdkind?
Why would that account be put into the scriptures which deal uniquely with the life and generations of mankind and their dealings with God?

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

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

Quite simple really. It's part of human nature to try to understand and defend our position when faced with contradiction.You do it and so does every other human being on the face of the planet. It may not have to do with this subject specifically but it is a built in response. That's how civilizations and ideas come about, by defending and communicating ideas with others and seeing a response, whether it is positive or negative.I'm sure you appreciate some kind of sport and you may even have a home team, how do you respond to a game situation? The same type of response is used here.Why do you participate so actively in this forum, it must be a positive stimulus that motivates you, this type of response is what I'm talking about.I also have an added motivation and that is to prove a point, just like you, when you respond.Is my point worthy of consideration, is it correct, does it need revising? That's why I participate. As for what you said, Don't all theories need to be considered or discarded when proven faulty in the scientific method?Is the popular acceptance of an idea a basis for maintaining its acceptance? If the answer is no, then we have to consider that there may be new insights to old ideas and that these continue to have relevance even when they are not accepted by a majority.Is modern understanding supreme and infallible? There is a saying: What is accepted as true today may be proved false tomorrow.If I choose to believe in the biblical version of the creation account, and I do, I am free to do so, but I have to defend my beliefs (just as you do yours). Especially when there is so much confusion in relation to this subject.Confusion stems from misunderestanding, fear and ignorance and can only be defeated by communication.

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Sorry about the extra post but there is another consideration that I would like to add. And the modern civilizations don't have their own type of creation myth?It just denies the spiritual and is called evolution. Remember it is still called "The Theory of Evolution".

---

We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

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