The 6 days of creation

[ThatMan]

I've been reading recently about a cave painting that has at least 44000 years old.

At first I thought the the Creator made the world in literally 6 days and made it look like billions of years. Then I thought the humanity appeared 6000 years ago, and the world was much much older.

Now, it's clear the that the story of creation can not be taken literally, humanity has at least 44000 years of existence.

Now, any ideas about the story of creation in 6 days?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ThatMan

I've been reading recently about a cave painting that has at least 44000 years old.

At first I thought the the Creator made the world in literally 6 days and made it look like billions of years. Then I thought the humanity appeared 6000 years ago, and the world was much much older.

Now, it's clear the that the story of creation can not be taken literally, humanity has at least 44000 years of existence.

Now, any ideas about the story of creation in 6 days?

I do not look at the creation account as a myth.

If you look at the 2 creation accounts, the 2 flood accounts, etc., it does not take long to realize more then one person is writing the accounts especially if you look at it in Hebrew.

If you look at the Talmud, people do not have issues with the Talmud. People realize it is a depository of opinions. I suspect Genesis, with its various opinions, is very similar to the Talmud in writing style. The difference is that the Talmud appears to be a more refined writing style that lets the reader to realize it is dealing with opinions whereas Genesis lacks that refinement.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

I do not look at the creation account as a myth.

If you look at the 2 creation accounts, the 2 flood accounts, etc., it does not take long to realize more then one person is writing the accounts especially if you look at it in Hebrew.

If you look at the Talmud, people do not have issues with the Talmud. People realize it is a depository of opinions. I suspect Genesis, with its various opinions, is very similar to the Talmud in writing style. The difference is that the Talmud appears to be a more refined writing style that lets the reader to realize it is dealing with opinions whereas Genesis lacks that refinement.

Put this in a different perspective, the 2 creation accounts might possibly be the first metaphysical writings!

Originally Posted by BigJohn

Put this in a different perspective, the 2 creation accounts might possibly be the first metaphysical writings!

BigJohn,

Mentioning metaphysical induced me to go over the 2 creation accounts. In a posting on a different thread, I shared a Lurianic kabbalah theory concerning tzimtzum. Briefly it postulates that God created a void within himself in order to create the world we inhabit. This was necessary to give man freedom otherwise God would determine everything and man would be nothing more than robotic.

The two creation stories could be explained by this and both are valid. So I would not necessarily believe that multiple authors were involved. In the first creation story we read about the creation of 'living' things and 'living creatures'. In the Bible 'living' denotes form and blood. Every 'soul' has body and soul. The creation of the animals first are a first indication of the possibility of evolution.....:) Now in the first creation account(Gen. 1:26-27) God created man in his image and likeness. Note also that he created male and female at the same time......no separate creation for man and female as is in the second creation account. Also note that nowhere does it state that man is a living being. Man at this time is only in the image and likeness of God....meaning that at this time man was solely a spiritual being(without form or blood). The difference for animals is that they were given the breath of live(vs. 30). The breath of life means they were given blood which signifies life.

Now in the second creation story(Genesis 2:7)…."the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life , and the man became a living being." It is at this time that man becomes a living being and at this time has body, soul, and spirit(still like God in that way). Man, however, was soon doomed to lose his spirit....this was to come with the expulsion from the Garden. Also, in the immediately following verses there are geographical descriptions(Tigris, Euphrates, etc.) which are known in the world we live in. This is to demonstrate that is the earthly creation(back to the void theory of tzimtzum that I mentioned). Note also, that man was formed from the dust.(dust to dust, etc.) Man was formed from the dust....something that had died. Link this with sin brings death so we can see that man, in a sense, came from sin. Perhaps this is some rationale for original sin ? Now note that Eve was created from Adam who was created from dust. In the first creation story man and female were created simultaneously...….in this creation story they were separately created. And Eve was created from flesh, not dust. So she shared the same DNA from Adam who was created from dust.

Enough for now......these are just speculations....corroborated by no one that I know of or have read of. But I am sure someone has speculated on this. Anyhow with my understanding I can accept both creation stories as being valid instead of being contradictory. I could write much more on this but I hate long postings....:) Besides I want to give others the opportunity to totally eviscerate this....hahahaha...!!!

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by Molhttp://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/images/editor/underline.gifearner

BigJohn,....................

Enough for now......these are just speculations....corroborated by no one that I know of or have read of. But I am sure someone has speculated on this. Anyhow with my understanding I can accept both creation stories as being valid instead of being contradictory. I could write much more on this but I hate long postings....:) Besides I want to give others the opportunity to totally eviscerate this....hahahaha...!!!

I look at the 2 creation accounts as independent accounts put forth as if somebody had asked 2 diverse groups their opinion on how creation came about. This is supported in the writing style used in each account. For example, the first account has Elohim, and only Elohim, involved with the creation.

I suspect the 2 creation accounts were written in a style that preceded the styles used in the Talmuds. If this is valid, then the creation accounts are opinions plus the 2 creation accounts might be one of the first, if not first, metaphysical documents.

Originally Posted by BigJohn

I look at the 2 creation accounts as independent accounts put forth as if somebody had asked 2 diverse groups their opinion on how creation came about. This is supported in the writing style used in each account. For example, the first account has Elohim, and only Elohim, involved with the creation.

I suspect the 2 creation accounts were written in a style that preceded the styles used in the Talmuds. If this is valid, then the creation accounts are opinions plus the 2 creation accounts might be one of the first, if not first, metaphysical documents.

BigJohn,

I can accept two authors with reservations. Unfortunately for me, I am a Christian so I cannot accept that these are 'opinions'. At this time there is no room in my belief system to accept that the Bible is a book of opinions. If that is the case then the entirety of the Bible should be viewed with suspicion. I will stick to my premise that these speak of two separate creations for some of the reasons I presented. Like so many things regarding the Bible I have attempted to ignore things that I was unable to reconcile. But time has given me the opportunity to view many things through a different lens and I continue to gain understanding of things I once thought unfathomable.

[sky]

Originally Posted by ThatMan

I've been reading recently about a cave painting that has at least 44000 years old.

At first I thought the the Creator made the world in literally 6 days and made it look like billions of years. Then I thought the humanity appeared 6000 years ago, and the world was much much older.

Now, it's clear the that the story of creation can not be taken literally, humanity has at least 44000 years of existence.

Now, any ideas about the story of creation in 6 days?

I have seen cave paintings that are 38000 years old, amazing....

Most religions include an explanation for life on Earth in their scriptures. Genesis is just one of them, explore some of the others you'll find them interesting, We have to remember that they didn't have Scientist/ Archeologists etc : that could explain Evolution so they had their own ways of understanding the wonders of the Universe and how Humans/Animals came to be....

[Miss Hepburn]

Originally Posted by ThatMan

Now, any ideas about the story of creation in 6 days?

Ideas? Sure...
Well, a day is the earth revolving around the sun 24 hrs.
We know they didn't exist at first - it was a Void - no light, no firmament.
There was no such thing as a day'. Ha! So we have that.

Then, for Bible readers, a day is like a thousand years to the Lord, right?
"A thousand years in your sight
are like a day that has just gone by,
or like a watch in the night." NIV Ps 90:4

Then 2 Peter 3:8:

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends:
With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

[ThatMan]

Thank you all for your answers, if more christians would understand that humanity has tens of thousands of years of existence, then they would be able to get a better understanding of the scriptures, there are too many subjects about the end time, every single year, someone comes with a new theory...

[Morpheus]

An older person will say, "In my day" we did this, that, or not.
We have the scripture also about a day being like unto a thousand years to the Lord...

We ought to understand by now especially with what physics tells us since Einstein, that in comparison with eternity, (a timeless reality), that Time (related with space), is insignificant.