The literal 6 day creation in Genesis.

[Reverend Keith]

Originally Posted by lightworkerAu

Genesis is critical to the Christian faith that the story of the fall of man in the garden of
Eden took place.

Jesus life, death and resurection centers around undoing the separation man man jas from God gained in the fall story.

A couple comments.

If the point of Genesis is the fall of man, that's a SPIRITUAL point, not a scientific or historical one. It doesn't matter what year it took place, or how many days after creation, or just what mechanism God used to create life. It doesn't even matter if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is an actual tree or a symbolic tree.

It's interesting that Jewish believers put much less emphasis on the fall of man occurring in the garden of Eden. Some rabbinical sources don't even believe in any such thing as "the fall of man". Frankly, there's no actual mention in Genesis of man suddenly acquiring a propensity for sin as a result of disobedience in the Garden. The consequences mentioned in Genesis seem entirely physical. Of course, once again, this might be entirely metaphorical for something spiritual. My point is that there are a lot of different ideas about what Genesis means, but almost none of it hinges on the literalism of the facts.

Same thing with Jesus mission. There are a lot of different interpretations, even among orthodox Christians, about just what Jesus accomplished and how. Throw Gnostics and other heterodox folks into the mix and the range is even broader.

Originally Posted by S-word

The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:2 ESV)

The New international Version, the Scofield Referrence Bible, and the Companion Bible, all note that the phase in Genesis 1: 2; The earth was formless and void (Having neither shape or mass) should be correctly translated, “The earth became without form and void.” The Hebrew word “Hayah” translated “was,” means “To become, occur, come to pass, Be.” (Vines Complete Expository of Old and New Testament Words, 1985. “To Be.”)

And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
(Genesis 1:9-10 ESV

The elements from the great nebula, which was the residue of one of the massive first generation stars of the first universal generation of light, when the greater percentage of its mass was condensed into the Black Hole around which the residue was trapped, began to be attracted to each other and finally condensed to create our solar system, in which, the contracting elements from which the planets were formed, would not become the great nuclear reactor that it is today, until the third day, or the third generation of the universe.

It would not be until the third creative day, or the third generation of the universe, that the sun and moon would form in the expanse that devides the elements in Oort cloud, from the elements of which the earth was created.

[Lightspirit]

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

A couple comments.

If the point of Genesis is the fall of man, that's a SPIRITUAL point, not a scientific or historical one. It doesn't matter what year it took place, or how many days after creation, or just what mechanism God used to create life. It doesn't even matter if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is an actual tree or a symbolic tree.

It's interesting that Jewish believers put much less emphasis on the fall of man occurring in the garden of Eden. Some rabbinical sources don't even believe in any such thing as "the fall of man". Frankly, there's no actual mention in Genesis of man suddenly acquiring a propensity for sin as a result of disobedience in the Garden. The consequences mentioned in Genesis seem entirely physical. Of course, once again, this might be entirely metaphorical for something spiritual. My point is that there are a lot of different ideas about what Genesis means, but almost none of it hinges on the literalism of the facts.

Same thing with Jesus mission. There are a lot of different interpretations, even among orthodox Christians, about just what Jesus accomplished and how. Throw Gnostics and other heterodox folks into the mix and the range is even broader.

The ability to sin was always there in man because of being something capable of exercising free will decisions.


There is one thing that bugs me in Genesis and that is that it says the serpent deceived Eve and physical changes occur to them both because of it.

I Find it interesting that people call the serpent Satan because it is not what it says.


Elsewhere in the bible it referrs o Satan deceiving Eve.

[Morpheus]

AU:

From what I understand of Genesis, mortality entered the picture after the fall along with the knowledge of good and evil. Time may have not changed, just people and their lifespan and workload did.

Genesis doesn't give much away scientifically regarding the creation story.

No, but it gives us indications that what modern Physics reveals is accurate.
Regarding a greater reality and Truth apart from "Space/Time".

"Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistant one." -Einstein

[Lightspirit]

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

A couple comments.

If the point of Genesis is the fall of man, that's a SPIRITUAL point, not a scientific or historical one. It doesn't matter what year it took place, or how many days after creation, or just what mechanism God used to create life. It doesn't even matter if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is an actual tree or a symbolic tree.

Exactly! its good talking to you you have lots of good info about this stuff.

[Morpheus]

A couple comments.

If the point of Genesis is the fall of man, that's a SPIRITUAL point, not a scientific or historical one. It doesn't matter what year it took place, or how many days after creation, or just what mechanism God used to create life. It doesn't even matter if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is an actual tree or a symbolic tree.

However, considering everything is connected, and, that science and religion are agreeing on the nature of the temporal and material world, and given the cosmic environmental situation approaching, involving the prophecies...perhap those questions are pertinent.

[Reverend Keith]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

However, considering everything is connected, and, that science and religion are agreeing on the nature of the temporal and material world, and given the cosmic environmental situation approaching, involving the prophecies...perhap those questions are pertinent.

I think that's unfortunate. I think it indicates religion has accepted the naturalistic view that what really matters are historical and scientific data, not spiritual meaning. And I think it will get messy when scripture is interpreted to fit a particular scientific model that subsequently changes as better models arise.

[theophilus]

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

If the point of Genesis is the fall of man, that's a SPIRITUAL point, not a scientific or historical one.

It is also a historical point. Either it happened or it didn't. If it didn't happen then the spiritual implications are irrelevant.

It's interesting that Jewish believers put much less emphasis on the fall of man occurring in the garden of Eden. Some rabbinical sources don't even believe in any such thing as "the fall of man".

That isn't surprising in light of the fact that they refused to believe that Jesus was the Messiah God had promised to send them. When anyone rejects any part of the truth his mind becomes blinded so that he is unable to understand any of the truth. If they have rejected God's remedy for sin it follows logically that they would refuse to believe the cause of sin.

[Lightspirit]

Originally Posted by Reverend Keith

I think that's unfortunate. I think it indicates religion has accepted the naturalistic view that what really matters are historical and scientific data, not spiritual meaning. And I think it will get messy when scripture is interpreted to fit a particular scientific model that subsequently changes as better models arise.

We are good at doing that, tying to get our scientific theories to validate our religious ones as if science is all that matters.


One day science will look over the horizon and find God there.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

I think that's unfortunate. I think it indicates religion has accepted the naturalistic view that what really matters are historical and scientific data, not spiritual meaning. And I think it will get messy when scripture is interpreted to fit a particular scientific model that subsequently changes as better models arise.

AU:

We are good at doing that, tying to get our scientific theories to validate our religious ones as if science is all that matters.

? Wait. Are either of you saying here that everything is not ultimately connected..?

Or, that the prophecies are not applicable for today, including Christ's words in Mathew 24, wherein He includes the ecological/environmental situations we are seeing?
Because if you are, that is what is unfortunate.
The prophecis are sure, their predictions manifested in human affairs, such as the return of the Jews to Israel... the global community in which we now reside... as well as the cosmic and ecological environment in which we find ourselves, today.

Or, do you disagree?