Creationism - Some Thoughts

The Hebrew Universe

I really don’t think it matters if we believe in a literal creation story or not. Can someone partake of the salvation offered by Christ and believe in Evolution? I think so. Can someone be completely lost and believe in Creationism? I think so. So personally, I don’t think it is appropriate to make it a big issue in the Church.

Here are a few excerpts from a response I wrote, playing the devil’s advocate. Keep in mind. I am just throwing some alternative points of view out there. I really don’t think it matters what you believe in the scheme of things because the Bible was NEVER meant to be used as science textbook! These are my thoughts, so accept them for the B.S. that they are:

The view that one must either believe “New Earth” Creationism or Darwinian Evolution is at best oversimplified, and at worst creates a false dichotomy. There are many different views of Creationism that do not rely on believing in a literal 6-day creation, or a global flood for that matter, that are not necessarily Darwinian Evolution.

Further, other Middle Eastern creation stories are remarkably similar to the Genesis account, and actually pre-date Genesis. Genesis was a particular creation story, for a particular people, written in a particular time in history. It is the setting for the rest of the Bible, and as such is extremely important. But, it is not the only creation story from the ancient Middle East, it is not completely unique, and is in fact, probably built on previous stories. (It is unique in particular ways, but that’s not really the issue.) These stories do not invalidate Genesis, but it is fairly clear that Genesis was built on these older creation accounts.

As such, Genesis was never meant to be used as a science textbook. Genesis was written in a pre-scientific age to people who had no concern for any of the issues you brought up, by using it as such I believe is misapplying and misinterpreting Scripture. You asked me how I could believe in the Bible, and pick and choose what I take as literal. There are many things about the Bible we don’t take literally because they were never intended to be taken literally, or they were not meant for us. For instance, we don’t take some of the poetic verses in the Psalms literally, we don’t gouge our eyes out, we don’t kill Philistines etc. I say that in reading Genesis the way it was intended, from a pre-scientific point of view, I am taking it literally, and by doing so, keeping myself from arguments that are not necessary.

I am aware that this might lead to a discussion about the “inerrancy” of the Bible (another Fundamentalist topic). Please know that one can still believe that the Bible is “infallible” without believing it is “inerrant”. I believe the Bible is perfect, in that it contains the information I need for life and salvation. However, it is not a science textbook. There are views that are contrary to common sense, and basic science.

One example that comes to mind is that the ancient Hebrew universe was shaped like a giant dome (firmament), that giant dome separated the “waters”, the earth was more or less flat, and stands on pillars... In a literal interpretation of the Bible, do I have to accept this? Science has found those things not to be true at all. So, by looking at Genesis like it should teach science we are put in awkward position.

The following verses explain the picture above: Job 26.11; 37.18; Gen 1.6, 7; Ps 24.2; 148.4; Gen 7.11; 8.2; Gen 1.14-19; Ps 19.4, 6; Num 16.30-33; Isa 14.9, 15

If I am to read the Bible “literally do I have to believe this is how the universe looks? Maybe I have become to “educated” to “believe” the Bible...

I am certainly not one to buy Darwinian Evolution, but neither am I willing to totally discount science. I don’t think justice is done to the issue by discussing a few “scientific” facts that supposedly backs up a “new earth” point of view without giving equal time to the abundance of scientific evidence that refutes it.