Creation Story

[rbaitz]

I was with you until the "myth" part.


I, too, was brought up with a YEC viewpoint. Which is based on how Gen 1:2 has been translated. In my late teens, I heard about the "GAP theory", that there is an unknown time gap between v.1 and 2. All of which would account for what science claims is a very old earth. However, I wasn't given any actual evidence for this, other than what was said.

Many years later, I discovered one of the most valuable verses in the Bible regarding how to study. Acts 17:11 - Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

So, I began applying this verse to what pastors/teachers/etc were saying. iow, does the Bible say what people claim?

At some point, I thought about Genesis 1:1,2. I met a Greek and Hebrew expert, whose church Bible is in Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT! He pointed me to biblehub.com as a resource for studying how Greek/Hebrew words are used in every other place in the OT or NT. When I studied the key words in v.2, I realized that the translators didn't translate those words the same way they did the rest of the OT. When seeing how these key words were translated in the rest of the OT, a different meaning began to develop.

Finally, every English translation begins v.2 with "and". The Hebrew has 1 word that can mean either "and" or "but", unlike the Greek and English. The Septuagint translates the conjunction as "but".

So, here is the traditional translation:

And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And this is how the key words should be translated:

But the earth became an uninhabitable wasteland; (I didn't examine the rest of the verse).

What is interesting is comparing this translation with what Isa 45:18 says:

For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Now, the blue words in the traditional verse is "tohu wabohu" and contradicts Isa 45:18, which says God did NOT create the earth 'empty', which is the same word in Gen 1:2.

So, either God did or did not create the earth "tohu". Using the corrected translation, developed from how the key words are translated elsewhere in the OT, there is no contradiction.

What we have is that God didn't create the earth a wasteland (Isa 45:18) BUT the earth BECAME a wasteland.

All that said, Genesis 1:2ff is about a restoration of God's original creation. So the earth can be every bit as old as science has measured, without any "damage" to the biblical text.

So I don't see any "myth" about Gen 1. Just a straightforward account of original creation (Gen 1:1) and the earth becoming a wasteland (without any explanation) and God restoring earth and putting man on it.

I mentioned in this post to others that “myth” is understood as fairytale today, but in ancient times it wasn’t. Myth was a way of communicating to others certain things. Parables are similar in that they communicated a story that pointed to real people, not necessarily real virgins or farmers or slaves. The Israelites creation story in Genesis 1 to the story of Abraham provided meaning and purpose to the Israelites existence in the world. The creation account, although different in many ways was nearly identical to the creation stories of other nations around them, in their past and in their present. Myth wasn’t used then to explain fairytale, but things they believed and helped to explain their relationship to God and the world.

Understanding now how I understand myth and how I am using it is important. If what I’m saying is correct about myth, is this something you could agree with?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I mentioned in this post to others that “myth” is understood as fairytale today, but in ancient times it wasn’t. Myth was a way of communicating to others certain things. Parables are similar in that they communicated a story that pointed to real people, not necessarily real virgins or farmers or slaves. The Israelites creation story in Genesis 1 to the story of Abraham provided meaning and purpose to the Israelites existence in the world. The creation account, although different in many ways was nearly identical to the creation stories of other nations around them, in their past and in their present. Myth wasn’t used then to explain fairytale, but things they believed and helped to explain their relationship to God and the world.

Understanding now how I understand myth and how I am using it is important. If what I’m saying is correct about myth, is this something you could agree with?

I take the Bible as generally literal, with obvious inclusions of metaphors and figures of speech.

I believe Adam was a real human being, along with the woman called Eve. Jesus and Paul considered Adam to be a real person. Jesus spoke of the beginning of the human race and God's plan of marriage for the human race. Paul noted that God created the human race from "one man", which was Adam. Acts 17.

I wouldn't use the word "myth" mostly because of the way it is used today. Kind of like the word "hope" in the NT. Today, it is used for wishful thinking, but in the NT, the Greek word meant "confident expectation", which is basically assurance. The exact opposite of wishful thinking.

 

[rbaitz]

I take the Bible as generally literal, with obvious inclusions of metaphors and figures of speech.

I believe Adam was a real human being, along with the woman called Eve. Jesus and Paul considered Adam to be a real person. Jesus spoke of the beginning of the human race and God's plan of marriage for the human race. Paul noted that God created the human race from "one man", which was Adam. Acts 17.

I wouldn't use the word "myth" mostly because of the way it is used today. Kind of like the word "hope" in the NT. Today, it is used for wishful thinking, but in the NT, the Greek word meant "confident expectation", which is basically assurance. The exact opposite of wishful thinking.

I don’t doubt the historicity of Adam and Eve. If the culture today wasn’t confused about myth only being fairytale, when in modern English it has the alternative definition as I’ve used, would you agree?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I don’t doubt the historicity of Adam and Eve. If the culture today wasn’t confused about myth only being fairytale, when in modern English it has the alternative definition as I’ve used, would you agree?

Yes.

 

[Ted01]

I don’t doubt the historicity of Adam and Eve. If the culture today wasn’t confused about myth only being fairytale, when in modern English it has the alternative definition as I’ve used, would you agree?

It's not merely common that a word's definition will change over time, it's inevitable fact.
I think trying to go back in time and preferring an older definition, then trying to get the rest of the world
to do the same thing is a fool-hardy task. No disrespect intended.

 

[rbaitz]

It's not merely common that a word's definition will change over time, it's inevitable fact.
I think trying to go back in time and preferring an older definition, then trying to get the rest of the world
to do the same thing is a fool-hardy task. No disrespect intended.

The modern dictionary defines the word “myth” in two different ways. The problem is that some people are ignorant, while others purposeful in ignorance, like atheists who claim myth and seek to undermine scripture. But there are a ton of other words out bibles use which our culture does not.

Example, the word “gospel” or “faith” or “repent” or “God” or “resurrection” or “truth” are all confusing things for a whole lot of people. Truth? Who’s truth? Gospel? What is that? Faith? Blind belief. God? Who is he, she, they, or fairytale? The ignorance of others is a time of teaching correcting moment for me. I can describe resurrection to someone, but I must retain the word and help others to understand it. That’s just my thinking. The same goes for myth. Speaking about myth would have been understood in ancient times so it must be mentioned in talking about ancient content that may be myth.

 

[posthuman]

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

There is a view that in between 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' and 'the earth was void' is the fall of Satan.
That Satan was head of the angels, in the earth, and that when He sinned he corrupted the earth. That the flood of Noah was the second time God judged the world with water

 

[Nehemiah6]

There is a view that in between 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' and 'the earth was void' is the fall of Satan.

Not sure why this is a "Winner". The Gap Theory has been debunked since the Ten Commandments refute it.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Not sure why this is a "Winner". The Gap Theory has been debunked since the Ten Commandments refute it.

it's a winner because that quote was posted towards me but i chose not to answer it and someone else answered it according to what i meant originally. it just means he answered to how i was intending. but i do not agree with such a theory, i was just asking if the thread creator believed in such.

 

[posthuman]

Not sure why this is a "Winner". The Gap Theory has been debunked since the Ten Commandments refute it.

because Genesis 1:1 says "bara" = created, Strong's #1254
but Exodus 20:11 says "asah" = made, Strong's #6213 -- which is used throughout Genesis 1 except for 1:1

also there are strong theological arguments, scriptural ones that arise from obvious questions about the earth being void & without form in Genesis 1, Satan walking among the fiery stones in Ezekiel 28, and a handful of other scriptures, that i don't have time to put but i think are readily found through googling the topic.

i do not mean to take sides here but to inform -- this would not be a persistent position if there was no merit to it at all. whichever view one takes they are in good company among very learned saints through the years

 

[posthuman]

it's a winner because that quote was posted towards me but i chose not to answer it and someone else answered it according to what i meant originally. it just means he answered to how i was intending. but i do not agree with such a theory, i was just asking if the thread creator believed in such.

much obliged!

like i said i'm not trying to take sides but to inform

my pastor believes this - not necessarily that this leaves room for billions of years, but that essentially Satan's fall was before the creation of biological life

i'm still a bit on the fence, but i will say this: my pastor encourages us to argue with him, but arguing with my pastor is very difficult.
it is for my good; he has helped me to grow quite a lot

the idea that creation is a response before all the angels to Satan, answering his accusations, can explain much that otherwise is quite mysterious.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Not sure why this is a "Winner". The Gap Theory has been debunked since the Ten Commandments refute it.

Could you please explain where in the 10 commandments refuted the time gap in Gen 1:1,2? I wasn't aware of that. Thanks.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

much obliged!

like i said i'm not trying to take sides but to inform

my pastor believes this - not necessarily that this leaves room for billions of years, but that essentially Satan's fall was before the creation of biological life

i'm still a bit on the fence, but i will say this: my pastor encourages us to argue with him, but arguing with my pastor is very difficult.
it is for my good; he has helped me to grow quite a lot

the idea that creation is a response before all the angels to Satan, answering his accusations, can explain much that otherwise is quite mysterious.

your Pastor believes Genesis 1:1 = a finished Creation with pre-Adamites?
Satan's Fall
God's restoration beginning at Genesis 1:2?

does he connect Jeremiah 4 as an explanation of this Event, and Verse 23 as reflecting Genesis 1:2 since God uses the same wording here for both descriptions of Earth?
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was [[((without form, and void))]]; and the heavens, and they had no light.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

Also, most people think the Time Gap is roughly 6,000 years, which is long enough to kill off even the plant life.

and they also connect when God tells the Earth in Verse 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.... means the prior Creation is where this SEED comes from already being in the Earth.

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

it's definitely an interesting Theory. what we are told is man comes from Adam as does our Sin Nature. if there was pre-Adamites, this would not affect Adam still fulfilling that role because they were completely wiped out.

 

[posthuman]

your Pastor believes Genesis 1:1 = a finished Creation with pre-Adamites?
Satan's Fall
God's restoration beginning at Genesis 1:2?

does he connect Jeremiah 4 as an explanation of this Event, and Verse 23 as reflecting Genesis 1:2 since God uses the same wording here for both descriptions of Earth?
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was [[((without form, and void))]]; and the heavens, and they had no light.

Not people pre-Adam, but a mineral Eden, as opposed to vegetable/biological, with Satan as federal head of the angels, comparing the fall in the angelic realm with the human realm and recognizing that the angels are witness to all of our history, and amazed, wondering in it, overjoyed at the revealing of Christ

And yes in re: Jeremiah but Ezekiel is his primary text, with the question of why the earth is void and covered with water in its first description. he asks, does God create things to be void and formless?

 

[posthuman]

recognizing that the angels are witness to all of our history, and amazed, wondering in it, overjoyed at the revealing of Christ

As in, our existence is a testimony to them. From. Their perspective God is working out a purpose. If Satan falls before we are created, that makes a lot of sense if we try to put ourselves in their shoes seeing all this happen

So it's not about trying to accommodate evolution, which he vehemently opposes, but theology

 

[TDidymas]

I mentioned in this post to others that “myth” is understood as fairytale today, but in ancient times it wasn’t. Myth was a way of communicating to others certain things. Parables are similar in that they communicated a story that pointed to real people, not necessarily real virgins or farmers or slaves. The Israelites creation story in Genesis 1 to the story of Abraham provided meaning and purpose to the Israelites existence in the world. The creation account, although different in many ways was nearly identical to the creation stories of other nations around them, in their past and in their present. Myth wasn’t used then to explain fairytale, but things they believed and helped to explain their relationship to God and the world.

Understanding now how I understand myth and how I am using it is important. If what I’m saying is correct about myth, is this something you could agree with?

Perhaps "narrative" would be a better word to use than "myth," given the obvious connotations?

 

[Beckie]

When one choose not to believe the beginning of the God's Word . How ever could they believe the last of it?

 

[TDidymas]

Would anyone like to comment on some of the content I mentioned? Add to it, engage with it? For example,

1. Myth, not as fairytale, but as a way the ancient people communicated at times. Just as poetry, parables, or figures of speech served their purposes, so did myth.

I'd rather use the term narrative.

2. A real historic Adam and Eve despite the creation myth story. Just as parables were fictional stories, yet they referred to real people.

Ref the parable of the prodigal son. It wouldn't fit well if the people were real people but the story is fictional, that's inconsistent. Either the story and the people are fictional, or both are real. But from the ANE perspective, the creation story is real and literal.

3. The ancient people (including the Israelites) had an ancient understanding of cosmology. Despite this, God still communicated theological messaging through it. In creation story, God is creator, owner, authority, ultimate King, while humans in relationship with God, are given roles of subordinate kings and priests over the creation.

No comment

4. Inerrancy, depending on which inerrant view you hold, can be forcing a particular interpretation and potential denial of what scripture does communicate or how the people actually understood things as found in scripture. Meanwhile other high view of scripture inerrancy views allow the Bible to be what it is.

Many people think that if there are any errors whatsoever in scripture, that none of it can be trusted. This is where the muslims go, and many Christians are so afraid of petty errors in scripture that they call it "inerrant," which is an exaggerative term. There can be errors in scripture where the theology and soteriology taught in it is inerrant. Think about this: truth in scripture is not found in words, but in the context of those words.

5. Does “firmament” being a firm solid thing holding back the waters above inform us of an ancient cosmology? This was a normal thing in the rest of the ancient world which Israel shared with their neighbors.

I'm inclined to believe that Moses held to an ANE cosmology, and that the Gen narratives were mostly oral traditions he learned from his ancestors.

6. Does Adam being made from dust show he was not made from nothing but something? Or is this teaching something else such as mortality? So then eating from the tree of life was the thing that allowed him to life forever? Our feeding on Christ, or being in Christ, this leads to life eternal.

Some people say that Christ is the tree of life, but this is an interpretation (and speculation IMO). It begs questions like: why were Adam and Eve not allowed to eat of the tree? Why does the tree of life exist in the new heavens and new earth, if everyone partakes of Christ there? Why do the nations need healing in the kingdom of heaven?