KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2012, 04:23 PM
KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
Okay, I have stated my belief on the Genesis Creation Story. Some of you scoffed at my "unchristian" take on it and how it was "unbiblical" or "New Agey".

So... I began to talk to my brother about it. Today he stumbled across something pretty interesting.

First, let me briefly explain what I believe:

The Genesis creation story is ancient cosmology. It is not literal. It is a story adapted from the "story language" of the time. God inspired it so that His covenant could be conveyed in a way that it was understood for the people of that time. It is not science, and it was never meant to be science. Again, it is an inspired story written in a way that God's people could understand God's covenant.

Adam and Eve were the beginning of the Hebrew people and the beginning of God’s covenant. They were not the first literal people on the earth; in fact, there were thousands of people on the earth.

So, Genesis 1-3 is a story that details the covenant God made with His people. Genesis 4 details the individual people that He made the covenant with.

Now, let’s look at why I believe this:

First, we have to look at certain Hebrew words. The proper noun Adam isn’t used until chapter 4. In Genesis 1-3 the word adam is used. Please click that link and look at how it is defined.

The translation isn’t “Adam” but is “man” or “mankind”. If the text meant to say “Adam” the proper noun, it would have used the word for it.

Now, let’s look at the Hebrew in 1:26-27. Radah means to “make dominion over”; however, the form of the word that is used translates a plural. Take a look at the literal translation from the YLT:

26And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'

This continues with verse 27 with the untranslatable word in the accusative case ’ō•ṯōw. This word shows a plural of more than 3 and is usually translated as “them”.

Again, in the YLT:

27And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them.

So, in Hebrew, the bolded “them” shows more than two. This means that them is a “collective them” and doesn’t mean just “a man and a woman”.

This again continues in verse 28 as God tells all humans what to do:

28And God blesseth them, and God saith to them, `Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over every living thing that is creeping upon the earth.'

This explains how the earth had many people on it before Adam and Eve. And remember, the aforementioned scripture is a story and not literal.

This type of language continues throughout the rest of 1, 2, and 3. The proper name of “Adam” isn’t mentioned until chapter 4 when his lineage is being discussed.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
08-02-2012, 04:33 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
[Image: 368.jpg]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like germanyt's post
08-02-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
That's definitely interesting to see the meaning behind the Hebrew words. I had not heard this yet. Thank you for sharing!

I don't see the need to inject God into the equation. The language seems suited to a more realistic situation that could have occurred. In fact, it seems perfectly suited to a real situation that could have without God. But then we'd be getting into a "who came first, chicken or egg" argument if we carry that further.

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kineo's post
08-02-2012, 10:00 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
You can spin the actual creation part any way you want and most people won't care because we aren't 100% sure on the how the universe began (or if it even had a beginning). But your creation story requires certain things or else your entire religion falls apart. There has to be an Original Sin committed by mankind or else the entire purpose and martyrdom of Jesus Christ was meaningless, and consequently, the entire Christian religion is baseless. (Except that some nice man was crucified for no reason and that's not very polite.)

The creation story tells of a talking snake and an apple of knowledge. What is your New Agey explanation/translation as to why mankind needed to be saved by Jesus? Even if it was just "the first Hebrews disobeyed him," is that really worth punishing every non-Hebrew on earth for all eternity by being born into sin?

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Buddy Christ's post
08-02-2012, 10:59 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
I've just finished watching Nova's Buried Secrets of the Bible. In it a theory was proposed that there never was a group of 2 million slaves leaving Egypt to conquer Canaan and become Israel. Instead, it has been learned that Canaan was an area of City-States. A small minority ruled over a majority of the people (kind of like the 1% vs. the 99%). Archaeology shows that over the course decades and probably centuries, one by one the City-States fell and people dispersed over time into smaller settlements. Over time, these people began to create an identity and eventually a whole ancient mythos to tell who they were...A Chosen People, rather than a bunch of ex-losers who used to be under the thumb of the Canaanite aristocracy. They would eventually create a religion and the Bible and blah blah.

Just because it was on Nova doesn't make it true, so my question is hypothetical. IF there were some way to show that this story, or one like it actually did happen, how would that affect your understanding of God. Consider: there never was an Abraham. There never was a Jacob who changed his name to Israel. There never was a Moses, Joshua, Saul. The history of the Israelites doesn't begin until King David and King Solomon consolidate these settlements of ex-Canaanites and announced that they are now the nation of Israel. If all that were some how absolute factual history, could you still believe in God? Or will you simply say he let those charlatans intentionally pass along a made up history and a made up rulebook to you in 2012 so you could know that he chose me to be tormented in the fires of hell forever?

Just wondering...

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
08-02-2012, 11:01 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
(08-02-2012 10:59 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I've just finished watching Nova's Buried Secrets of the Bible. In it a theory was proposed that there never was a group of 2 million slaves leaving Egypt to conquer Canaan and become Israel. Instead, it has been learned that Canaan was an area of City-States. A small minority ruled over a majority of the people (kind of like the 1% vs. the 99%). Archaeology shows that over the course decades and probably centuries, one by one the City-States fell and people dispersed over time into smaller settlements. Over time, these people began to create an identity and eventually a whole ancient mythos to tell who they were...A Chosen People, rather than a bunch of ex-losers who used to be under the thumb of the Canaanite aristocracy. They would eventually create a religion and the Bible and blah blah.

Just because it was on Nova doesn't make it true, so my question is hypothetical. IF there were some way to show that this story, or one like it actually did happen, how would that affect your understanding of God. Consider: there never was an Abraham. There never was a Jacob who changed his name to Israel. There never was a Moses, Joshua, Saul. The history of the Israelites doesn't begin until King David and King Solomon consolidate these settlements of ex-Canaanites and announced that they are now the nation of Israel. If all that were some how absolute factual history, could you still believe in God? Or will you simply say he let those charlatans intentionally pass along a made up history and a made up rulebook to you in 2012 so you could know that he chose me to be tormented in the fires of hell forever?

Just wondering...

Nova didn't just make this up, they presented supporting evidence. So the question isn't hypothetical.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
08-02-2012, 11:08 PM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
(08-02-2012 11:01 PM)Chas Wrote:  Nova didn't just make this up, they presented supporting evidence. So the question isn't hypothetical.

Well, my point being, I can't confidently say how strong or accepted this theory is. Does 1 guy believe it? I haven't done my research so I'm leaving the question as posed. Tongue

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
09-02-2012, 03:00 AM
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
The problem I have KC is there is *no* external reference mentioned there. It's all "this is what the Bible really means". The only reason you're forced into this torturous explanation is that we know that reality is at odds with the story if taken literally.

If we take the Bible as a collection of myths written by primitives there is no need for all this forced stuff. It's only if we want to find a way for it to be true that we have to resort to these gymnastics.

It's like this:
I say to your six year old cousin "last week it rained for the whole week". You're in Peru so you're like "OK geez that's hectic". But then you fly in to South Africa and you see that there's no evidence of that - the fields are bone dry where I live, the rivers aren't in flood.

And now, instead of considering the possibility that my statement was incorrect, you start making up reasons why it still is correct:
"He meant that somewhere in the world it rained for a whole week"
"It depends how you define rain"
"It did actually rain, just all the rivers drained really fast for some reason and the sun was really strong so it dried up the fields quickly".
"It's a story he told my cousin 'cos she's a baby and can't understand".

That's what you're doing, in my oh-so-humble opinion Tongue Intellectually you're capable of understanding that I could have lied to your cousin but you have so much faith in me that you will not consider that possibility as having any merit whatsoever, even when a bunch of other guys come up and start asking awkward questions...
Just to make that analogy clear:

I am the Bible. (NOT God).
Your cousin is the daft Hebrews who couldn't understand factual statements apparently.
"It rained for a week" is the creation account.
The dry fields and weakly flowing rivers are the evidence for the scientific viewpoint (analogous to the statement that whatever *did* happen, it sure as hell wasn't a one week thunderstorm).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
09-02-2012, 08:38 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 08:40 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
(08-02-2012 10:00 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  You can spin the actual creation part any way you want and most people won't care because we aren't 100% sure on the how the universe began (or if it even had a beginning).

I get it. You're an atheist.

Quote:But your creation story requires certain things or else your entire religion falls apart. There has to be an Original Sin committed by mankind or else the entire purpose and martyrdom of Jesus Christ was meaningless, and consequently, the entire Christian religion is baseless. (Except that some nice man was crucified for no reason and that's not very polite.)

The creation story tells of a talking snake and an apple of knowledge. What is your New Agey explanation/translation as to why mankind needed to be saved by Jesus? Even if it was just "the first Hebrews disobeyed him," is that really worth punishing every non-Hebrew on earth for all eternity by being born into sin?

That is 100% wrong and that is very narrow understanding of sin.

God created humans to sin. If He didn't then Christ would have no purpose. A perfect being cannot choose to be imperfect; therefore, man was created imperfect / sinful.

Adam's "original sin" blankets mankind because he was the first sinful human in the covenant relationship with God. Adam's sin didn't damn our human nature. God damned our human nature.

Before Adam, there was only death. After Adam and the covenant relationship, there was spiritual death, and this spiritual death began with Adam and was passed down.

(08-02-2012 10:59 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  I've just finished watching Nova's Buried Secrets of the Bible. In it a theory was proposed that there never was a group of 2 million slaves leaving Egypt to conquer Canaan and become Israel. Instead, it has been learned that Canaan was an area of City-States. A small minority ruled over a majority of the people (kind of like the 1% vs. the 99%). Archaeology shows that over the course decades and probably centuries, one by one the City-States fell and people dispersed over time into smaller settlements. Over time, these people began to create an identity and eventually a whole ancient mythos to tell who they were...A Chosen People, rather than a bunch of ex-losers who used to be under the thumb of the Canaanite aristocracy. They would eventually create a religion and the Bible and blah blah.

Just because it was on Nova doesn't make it true, so my question is hypothetical. IF there were some way to show that this story, or one like it actually did happen, how would that affect your understanding of God. Consider: there never was an Abraham. There never was a Jacob who changed his name to Israel. There never was a Moses, Joshua, Saul. The history of the Israelites doesn't begin until King David and King Solomon consolidate these settlements of ex-Canaanites and announced that they are now the nation of Israel. If all that were some how absolute factual history, could you still believe in God? Or will you simply say he let those charlatans intentionally pass along a made up history and a made up rulebook to you in 2012 so you could know that he chose me to be tormented in the fires of hell forever?

Just wondering...

I guess I would have to be faced with that situation to know what I would do.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2012, 08:42 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2012 08:47 AM by lucradis.)
RE: KC's interpretation of the Creation Account
But.... But.... That doesn't explain anything or make any sense..... You so crazay!



I will never understand the comment of "without sin jesus has no purpose"
Because it makes no sense. If god makes everything happen then Jesus never had a purpose.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes lucradis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: