Anabaptist perspective of the Creation narrative?

[Soloist]

That doesn't seem surprising to me considering we are mere humans.

This. I’ve never quite understood why people are so insistent on the 6 day creation story. Especially when Gen 1 and 2 seem to have contradictory information. Why not allow it to be something we can’t fully explain?

Humanity has always attempted to create stories or explanations for things it doesn’t understand. Does it not seem likely that is how much of the Creation story came about? Why not view it as a beautiful testament of a people to their God? I think the beauty of faith is in not knowing all the answers, not in some surety that we know it all.

If we are to conclude that Genesis was dreamed up by mankind in an attempt to explain the origin of the world, shall we also conclude that the account of Jesus' birth, life, suffering and death was also dreamed up by humans to give themselves hope for the future?

If somehow the story of Jesus is accurate under that logic, the questions would be raised about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Jonah, the flood, the axe head floating and David and Goliath. Might as well assume that anything in the Old Testament is just stories for our good and not necessarily true. After all, which ones were wrote by eye witnesses?

[Josh]

Notice the phrasing “their god”, as if Genesis 1 is just one of many other Canaanite temple texts. It implies that different people can have different gods.

[Ken]

Notice the phrasing “their god”, as if Genesis 1 is just one of many other Canaanite temple texts. It implies that different people can have different gods.

Well, if there weren’t any other gods then we wouldn’t need the First Commandment.

God speaking through Moses doesn’t say there are no other gods. He says “thou shalt have no other gods before me”

[Bootstrap]

If we are to conclude that Genesis was dreamed up by mankind in an attempt to explain the origin of the world, shall we also conclude that the account of Jesus' birth, life, suffering and death was also dreamed up by humans to give themselves hope for the future?

You are making a modern Western assumption there. You are assuming that Genesis 1 and 2 are designed to explain how the world originated, and in a way that corresponds to modern science. And perhaps you are also assuming that Genesis 1 explains the very beginning of creation ex nihilo, out of nothing, the equivalent of the Big Bang.

I think Genesis 1 and 2 are about who God is and his power and glory over all of creation (Genesis 1) and over the earth where human beings live (Genesis 2). They show him repeatedly bringing order out of chaos and they show him choosing mankind as his servants. And they repeatedly show that Yawheh is God, not those pagan gods - this is especially obvious if you compare creation narratives to those of their neighbors. Genesis 1 is powerful liturgical poetry.

Genesis 1 is written to people who do not have our modern scientific world view. They have no idea what a Big Bang is, God does not try to introduce this concept. Maybe that's because our modern scientific view is wrong, maybe it's right but not helpful for communicating with people in the Ancient Near East.

Regardless, Genesis 1 is not modern science as we know it. Neither is the resurrection, FWIW. We know the resurrection is true, but not because we have a solid scientific explanation for it, and the New Testament does not attempt to give us a scientific explanation. Let's take a look at the start of Genesis 1 and see what happens if we try to turn it into a modern scientific account.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth— Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light!” And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God caused there to be a separation between the light and between the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Note that this describes no time before the Spirit of God hovering over the chaotic waters.

Was there an earth with waters before there was light? Was there light and an earth before there were day and night? What is the scientific term for a separation between light and darkness?

And God said, “Let there be a vaulted dome in the midst of the waters, and let it cause a separation between the waters.” So God made the vaulted dome, and he caused a separation between the waters which were under the vaulted dome and between the waters which were over the vaulted dome. And it was so. And God called the vaulted dome “heaven.” And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.

What is the modern scientific term for a "vaulted dome" or a "firmament" or whatever your translation uses for רָקִיעַ? How does modern science describe this separation between the waters?

You can try to insist that Genesis 1 act like a modern American scientific text, but it's hard to do that without doing damage to the text. Or you can do a close reading of the text, learn a little about ancient Hebrew poetry, and focus on how Genesis 1 -3 foreshadow the entire arc of the Bible. That all tends to get mowed under if we try to turn it into modern science. We need to learn to think like Genesis, we don't need to force-fit Genesis into the way we think.

[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.

[Wayne in Maine]

That doesn't seem surprising to me considering we are mere humans.

This. I’ve never quite understood why people are so insistent on the 6 day creation story. Especially when Gen 1 and 2 seem to have contradictory information. Why not allow it to be something we can’t fully explain?

Humanity has always attempted to create stories or explanations for things it doesn’t understand. Does it not seem likely that is how much of the Creation story came about? Why not view it as a beautiful testament of a people to their God? I think the beauty of faith is in not knowing all the answers, not in some surety that we know it all.

If we are to conclude that Genesis was dreamed up by mankind in an attempt to explain the origin of the world, shall we also conclude that the account of Jesus' birth, life, suffering and death was also dreamed up by humans to give themselves hope for the future?

Only if you assert that the collection of writings we call “the Bible” are the infallible Word of God, penned by God Himself from cover to cover, which I think is a doctrine that puts a stumbling block in front of many rational and reasonable people who actually “hunger and thirst after righteousness.

There is a big difference between a Bibliocentric faith and a Christocentric faith.

[ken_sylvania]

If we are to conclude that Genesis was dreamed up by mankind in an attempt to explain the origin of the world, shall we also conclude that the account of Jesus' birth, life, suffering and death was also dreamed up by humans to give themselves hope for the future?

You are making a modern Western assumption there. You are assuming that Genesis 1 and 2 are designed to explain how the world originated, and in a way that corresponds to modern science. And perhaps you are also assuming that Genesis 1 explains the very beginning of creation ex nihilo, out of nothing, the equivalent of the Big Bang.

I think Genesis 1 and 2 are about who God is and his power and glory over all of creation (Genesis 1) and over the earth where human beings live (Genesis 2). They show him repeatedly bringing order out of chaos and they show him choosing mankind as his servants. And they repeatedly show that Yawheh is God, not those pagan gods - this is especially obvious if you compare creation narratives to those of their neighbors. Genesis 1 is powerful liturgical poetry.

Genesis 1 is written to people who do not have our modern scientific world view. They have no idea what a Big Bang is, God does not try to introduce this concept. Maybe that's because our modern scientific view is wrong, maybe it's right but not helpful for communicating with people in the Ancient Near East.

Regardless, Genesis 1 is not modern science as we know it. Neither is the resurrection, FWIW. We know the resurrection is true, but not because we have a solid scientific explanation for it, and the New Testament does not attempt to give us a scientific explanation. Let's take a look at the start of Genesis 1 and see what happens if we try to turn it into a modern scientific account.

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth— Now the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters. And God said, “Let there be light!” And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God caused there to be a separation between the light and between the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

Note that this describes no time before the Spirit of God hovering over the chaotic waters.

Was there an earth with waters before there was light? Was there light and an earth before there were day and night? What is the scientific term for a separation between light and darkness?

And God said, “Let there be a vaulted dome in the midst of the waters, and let it cause a separation between the waters.” So God made the vaulted dome, and he caused a separation between the waters which were under the vaulted dome and between the waters which were over the vaulted dome. And it was so. And God called the vaulted dome “heaven.” And there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.

What is the modern scientific term for a "vaulted dome" or a "firmament" or whatever your translation uses for רָקִיעַ? How does modern science describe this separation between the waters?

You can try to insist that Genesis 1 act like a modern American scientific text, but it's hard to do that without doing damage to the text. Or you can do a close reading of the text, learn a little about ancient Hebrew poetry, and focus on how Genesis 1 -3 foreshadow the entire arc of the Bible. That all tends to get mowed under if we try to turn it into modern science. We need to learn to think like Genesis, we don't need to force-fit Genesis into the way we think.

Thank you for your patronage.

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?

[Soloist]

Only if you assert that the collection of writings we call “the Bible” are the infallible Word of God, penned by God Himself from cover to cover, which I think is a doctrine that puts a stumbling block in front of many rational and reasonable people who actually “hunger and thirst after righteousness.

There is a big difference between a Bibliocentric faith and a Christocentric faith.

Is Jesus and God the same persona in sense of moral and teaching? if so, then the entirety of the Bible is Christ centric.

[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.

[Soloist]

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?