To Christians who aren't creationists

[The Grand Nudger]

I see a fairy tale that speaks to what the authors felt to be an idyllic life before the sweat and toil of their own became a reality. A paradisical garden from which they hailed, (and to which they can never return, as it is lost to them), early expressions of the notions of a "golden age" which in each and every generation has been invoked as a thing of the past, the domain of the waning or long dead generations of men. I see the perceived virtues of living a life in which the land provides of it's own accord, and later, in which the shepherd upon those lands is favored over those that would toil against the "will" of their environment, proudly and vainly attempting to create for themselves a new garden, a new land. The notion that some things, once done or known cannot be undone, unknown. The consequences of our decisions. The regrets of the people who felt party to those decisions.

That, to me, seems richer and more useful than any invocations of magical beasties and the life they are said to have lain out for us.

I also see a very common (mis)understanding of the cosmos, borrowed from those peoples whom the authors clearly had great respect for in this regard at least. I also see the ethnocentric tendencies of a tribe when explaining their own origins as that of being special or favored by some divine providence, their positive value judgements of their own way of life over that of those people who lived around them. I see the pragmatism of supernatural explanations in that these people did not require an explanation for the things which the stories invoke, only how those things related to themselves. I also see a people who were completely and wholly ignorant of their actual origins, of the factual reality of the cosmos and how and when they (and it) came to be what it was.

There isn't anything more to genesis than ourselves. There is no god in it's pages, there are no origins in it's explanations. It isn't a story about how we've been led astray from any cosmic being, but how the authors felt that they had led themselves astray from what they perceived to be an idyllic existence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So god noticed the evolution of man and plucked him from the earth and said you look like me and deserve a soul?

That would be the Tycho monolith theory.

[Drich]

All definitions are provided by: Strong's blue letter bible, lexicon and concordance. If you believe you have a leg up on this reference material then please feel free to contact the editor responsible...IWhat version are you using? I've always got the impression that Strongs is a bit dated unless you're using modern updated versions.

Sources:
Zondervan NASB Exhaustive Concordance 1981
"The Vocabulary Guide to Biblical Hebrew" by Van Pelt and Pratico
Lightcatcher Interlinear Genesis

I can't show the pointing but the 5 most common foms of 'chayah' are as follows:

Het-Yod-He = to live (Q); to live intensely (Pi), caused to live (Hi)
Het-Yod = living (adj) living
Het-Yod-Yod-Mem = lifetime
Het-Yod-He (fs constr) = animal, beast
Het-Yod-Hee (3ms suff) = life

When i followed up with other sources I noticed the distinction was less appearent, so I change this post to the other one you responded to.

---

So god noticed the evolution of man and plucked him from the earth and said you look like me and deserve a soul?

So believe this, but this is not what is recorded in the bible. We are told God created man period, in His image, and then placed in the Garden for an undisclosed amount of time. What I am suggesting is that outside the garden God set in motion the evolutionary process that would yield monkey or evolved man.

Why? So when they were cast out of the garden after the fall the species would develop into what it is today.

[The Grand Nudger]

What is "recorded in the bible", are the beliefs of men, and those stories which were important to them (for whatever reason) Drich. Nothing more.

[Drich]

The text does not exclude this interpretation.

Actually it does in the passage I left for you. God told Adam He may eat from any tree in the garden except the tree of Knowledge. The tree of life was included in that grouping. I also left a passage describing what the fruit of that tree does.

I don’t see it as very compelling, though. Most likely because I’m an adoptionist and the original sin/penal substitution dynamic is not a part of my theology. So it’s not important to me whether its literal or not.

That is the beautiful thing about all of it. This account does not have to "appeal or compel" anyone aside from those looking to assimilate the two accounts of Origins as they have been stated.

It seems to me that your approach supports the doctrine or penal substitution, but I am curious how a literal interpretation informs your life. I understand the Reformed position that because of sin, people die, and need to appease the wrath of the Father. That means the message of the Adam and Eve story is not to disobey God, which seems pretty basic and not very helpful.

How is this adaptation of creation helpful to me, as a Christian?
As a Christian I must accept and incorporate all that Christ says into my Christian faith. Christ points to the story of Adam and Eve as an actual literal event. Therefore as a Christian, I am obligated to not only take the literal interpretation of Genesis. I also have to account for the fossil record.

In an allegorical interpretation I see that when we look to our own sense perceptions for spiritual knowledge (symbolized by the tree) and confirm (eating to make part of self) the resulting thoughts into our behavior (the fruit) then we are led astray. That seems to be a much richer and useful message.

That's just it. For me and my station it is not my responsibility to reinterpret anything. Christ said it was real, now it is up to me to accept it and make it work in my life.

This is my understanding of Christianity and this is what I am bound to. If you have loosed yourself from this understanding of the faith and bound yourself to another then know you are responsiable for it.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Drich, you do not have to take the fossil record into account. You must always refer to your faith, even in the face of the fossil record, or else your statement (and faith) become hollow and empty. You're deciding what to take, when to take it, and what it means. There's nothing literal here, there's nothing faithful in this.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So believe this, but this is not what is recorded in the bible.

’Recorded’ has a historical connotation that reflects your literal interpretation. Saying that the Bible ‘tells’, ‘says’ or ‘what is written’ would be more neutral and suggest openness to alternate interpretations, which sounds more like you.

We are told God created man period, in His image… outside the garden God set in motion the evolutionary process that would yield monkey or evolved man.

The problem is defining the characteristics that liken man to God. Are you suggesting that YHWH is a bi-pedal hominid? Probably not. I say the external and biological human form is irrelevant. What matters is our hearts and minds. Why is the process of speciation even important with respect to our relationship with God?

The text does not exclude this interpretation.

I meant to acknowledge your interpretation as possible.

Christ points to the story of Adam and Eve as an actual literal event.

You are the one saying that is how Jesus meant it to be taken. Jesus did not come to inform us of historical facts. He retold a story to teach us how to live.

I also have to account for the fossil record.

Why? God did not command anyone to confirm specific scientific theories.

For me and my station it is not my responsibility to reinterpret anything.

Look at how together we parsed out the significance of ‘chayah’. Can’t you see that everyone is already engaged in the process of interpreting the text, regardless of their take on it. When we engage with the Word it challenges our ability to understand it and make it part of our life.

If you have loosed yourself from this understanding of the faith and bound yourself to another then know you are responsible for it.

You’re suggesting that I have deviated from the ‘historic’ Christian faith. The various denominations reflect the ideas of those we look to for guidance. Some look to Origen, some to Luther, and others to Calvin? I find Swedenborg’s exegesis more compelling, even if it is a minority opinion. From my perspective evangelicals are stuck on the surface of the text and not engaging it on its deepest levels.

[Drich]

No, Drich, you do not have to take the fossil record into account. You must always refer to your faith, even in the face of the fossil record, or else your statement (and faith) become hollow and empty. You're deciding what to take, when to take it, and what it means. There's nothing literal here, there's nothing faithful in this.

what are you so afraid of? Why do you need to have the line between faith and science so clear cut?

As far as what i have to do, I have been given, an understanding that i must be faithful to in order to satisfy my faith to God.

How is it that those who do not know faith seem to always presume to know more about it than those who do?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't require that there be any line, it just so happens that there is.

Given by whom? Yourself. How did you come about it? Interpretation.

I never presumed anything, I expected you to know more about your own faith than I do. The minute you invoked fairies I realized that I had been mistaken. You believe a great deal more about your faith than I do, you seem to know a great deal less.

[Neo-Scholastic]

…i must be faithful to in order to satisfy my faith to God…How is it that those who do not know faith ...

Helpful suggestion…try not to confuse the various senses of the word ‘faith.’ Faith, as in faithfulness, is how you act in response to what you belief. Faith can also mean the same as hope. Or belief in the absence of proof. Or as a description of your particular set of doctrines.