Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[Wayne in Maine]

Most of Christianity through all ages and cultures, for 2,000 years, believed Genesis was written as a literal account of Creation and the Orthodox, Hebrew language Jews still do too.
The only reason Christianity is contorting Genesis now into the “not to be taken literally” framework, is because they have come to believe in evolution or are overly influenced by it. There is no otherwise reasonable and honest reason from a literary or historical understanding of the text to actually show that Genesis wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It doesn’t exist.

Do you believe that the earth is a flat surface with a vaulted dome above it separating the waters above from the waters below?

Answer me yes or no. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.

I don't recall seeing that verse. There are many things that are less then clear as to the exact meaning.
Let me ask you a question. Why do you believe in a spherical earth? Have you personally observed the sphere from space? tested the parallax? What testable data do you have that you can gather?
I know your point but you don't even believe in a global flood. The question really should be, what miracles do you believe in the old Testament?

I don’t recall seeing a verse stating that the Universe is somewhere around 6000 years old.

[Soloist]

I don’t recall seeing a verse stating that the Universe is somewhere around 6000 years old.

I believe the Scripture gives admonition not to argue about genealogy otherwise I would.

[Sliceitup]

I was responding to the suggestion that the Genesis account represents an attempt by ignorant humans to create a story to explain something they didn't understand. Does your attempt to learn to "think like Genesis" see the Genesis account as inspired by God, or does it see Genesis as nothing more than a folk tale?

Can it not be both a folk tale and inspired by God?

If someone in our modern day was inspired by God, would their words not still reflect their current understanding of the world?

[RZehr]

Most of Christianity through all ages and cultures, for 2,000 years, believed Genesis was written as a literal account of Creation and the Orthodox, Hebrew language Jews still do too.
The only reason Christianity is contorting Genesis now into the “not to be taken literally” framework, is because they have come to believe in evolution or are overly influenced by it. There is no otherwise reasonable and honest reason from a literary or historical understanding of the text to actually show that Genesis wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It doesn’t exist.

Do you believe that the earth is a flat surface with a vaulted dome above it separating the waters above from the waters below?

Answer me yes or no. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.

I’m noting that you aren’t disagreeing with what I’m asserting.

To answer your question simply, my answer is no. My longer answer is that I don’t believe the Bible clearly says that it is like that either.

[ken_sylvania]

I was responding to the suggestion that the Genesis account represents an attempt by ignorant humans to create a story to explain something they didn't understand. Does your attempt to learn to "think like Genesis" see the Genesis account as inspired by God, or does it see Genesis as nothing more than a folk tale?

Can it not be both a folk tale and inspired by God?

If someone in our modern day was inspired by God, would their words not still reflect their current understanding of the world?

I suppose that their words would reflect that to a degree, but I don't think that God would inspire a statement that the moon is made of green cheese, even if a person actually believed that to be true.

[Wayne in Maine]

Most of Christianity through all ages and cultures, for 2,000 years, believed Genesis was written as a literal account of Creation and the Orthodox, Hebrew language Jews still do too.
The only reason Christianity is contorting Genesis now into the “not to be taken literally” framework, is because they have come to believe in evolution or are overly influenced by it. There is no otherwise reasonable and honest reason from a literary or historical understanding of the text to actually show that Genesis wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It doesn’t exist.

Do you believe that the earth is a flat surface with a vaulted dome above it separating the waters above from the waters below?

Answer me yes or no. Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay.

I’m noting that you aren’t disagreeing with what I’m asserting.

To answer your question simply, my answer is no. My longer answer is that I don’t believe the Bible clearly says that it is like that either.

I disagree with what you are asserting and I'm enlisting the consistency police against you.

You assert that the earth is quite young, based on a "literal" reading of Genesis (exactly how young is the Universe, I can't find a precise number in Genesis?). Yet you reject the obvious description of the universe as written in plain simple Hebrew in the same book.

Christians, long before Darwin and his theory of evolution, questioned the "scientific" value of Genesis based on observations of geology and astronomy. That is why we do not believe in the description of the universe as given in Genesis, and why we need not believe that the universe is a mere 6000-1000 years old. This has nothing to do with evolution.

[Soloist]

I disagree with what you are asserting and I'm enlisting the consistency police against you.

You assert that the earth is quite young, based on a "literal" reading of Genesis (exactly how young is the Universe, I can't find a precise number in Genesis?). Yet you reject the obvious description of the universe as written in plain simple Hebrew in the same book.

Christians, long before Darwin and his theory of evolution, questioned the "scientific" value of Genesis based on observations of geology and astronomy. That is why we do not believe in the description of the universe as given in Genesis, and why we need not believe that the universe is a mere 6000-1000 years old. This has nothing to do with evolution.

You refuse to answer questions and question Scripture. As far as I know, you believe all of the old Testament miracles could be naturalistically explained which inevitably suggests that the New could be rationally explained away using the same logic. I know you believe in the New Testament, why is the Old Testament subject to disbelief?

A plausible explanation exists but you rejected it and chose to accept the same scientists who argue and support evolution despite claiming you disagree with their observations.

Those observations would come to the same conclusions flawed as they are if you were to observe Adam after he was created.

[Josh]

I was responding to the suggestion that the Genesis account represents an attempt by ignorant humans to create a story to explain something they didn't understand. Does your attempt to learn to "think like Genesis" see the Genesis account as inspired by God, or does it see Genesis as nothing more than a folk tale?

Can it not be both a folk tale and inspired by God?

If someone in our modern day was inspired by God, would their words not still reflect their current understanding of the world?

The Bible is not the same thing as Cinderella or a nursery rhyme.

And no, nobody in our modern world is “inspired” enough to add to the scriptures, although people like Joseph Smith certainly have tried.

[Sliceitup]

I was responding to the suggestion that the Genesis account represents an attempt by ignorant humans to create a story to explain something they didn't understand. Does your attempt to learn to "think like Genesis" see the Genesis account as inspired by God, or does it see Genesis as nothing more than a folk tale?

Can it not be both a folk tale and inspired by God?

If someone in our modern day was inspired by God, would their words not still reflect their current understanding of the world?

The Bible is not the same thing as Cinderella or a nursery rhyme.

And no, nobody in our modern world is “inspired” enough to add to the scriptures, although people like Joseph Smith certainly have tried.

A folk tale is not even close to a Cinderella story or a nursery rhyme. I never implied that the Bible was either. If one defines a folk tale as an oral story passed down through generations then many books of the Bible fit that definition quite well.

I never said they need to be adding to the scriptures. But if that’s the only way one can be inspired by God to do any writing then I guess I misunderstood God.

[Josh]

I’m going to categorically reject comparisons of the scriptures to “folk tales”.