Cheryl Schatz

Don,

As I stated, one sees the polemic in Gen 1 in contrast to the other polytheistic origins stories.

I don’t know about the other polytheistic origin stories. What I was asking for is where do you see in the text that it is a response to other polytheistic origins? I don’t see anything that would make Genesis 1 a response to a myth. I don’t have a problem with you showing where God said this….and the myth said this….but to say that it was written as an argument against a myth and therefore it isn’t to be taken as a real historic sequential event(s), has problems for me. What is the grammar that you use to prove that it is a response to an unrecorded myth? Where is the contrast in the text that points you to the conclusion that it isn’t an actual account but a “picture” that is only meant to refute a myth but have no historical function. I hope that you can understand that I am a fact person and without evidence there is nothing to convince me.

2….This is what egals claim for some verses, asking to see the cultural contrast; this is what I do for Gen origins stories also. It is not reading into the text to notice this contrast, in either case.

Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. i.e. that there is no contrast in the text itself, you just see a contrast in the myths with the Genesis account? If this is what you mean, then we would have to take the account as it is since the actual historical account of creation had to come first and the myths are takeoffs of the original.

3. On you being wrong, I am NOT saying that the way you understand the origins texts is impossible, just that it is not required by the text, that other interpretations are also possible.

For example? It would be helpful if you could pick a concrete example. i.e. animals created after Adam, the garden created after Adam, the plants sprouting after Adam. Take your pick.

4. I try my best to read every portion of Scripture as it would be understood by the original readers, not just the “gender” verses. For the Torah of Moses, I believe these original readers would be the early Israelites.

The origin of creation is not given differently for an Israelite. A fact is a fact. Unless you are trying to say that God relates the creating of the sun different to one race than He does to another? The story of creation would have been passed down from one generation to another. In fact according to the genealogy of Genesis, Noah’s son Shem was still alive when Abraham died and one of Adam’s grandsons was alive when Noah was born. God’s truth survived and flourished and the Genesis account is not muddied by myth but is an accurate account of great historical significance. If this is not true, then show why we should not trust that Genesis was given as a historical record. What hidden code is in the text that makes it not historical?

5. I also accept God’s word on the matter of creation. I believe what we see had a beginning and did not always exist and that it is at least 6700 years old. This eliminates a lot of alternatives.

That is pretty general. Do you accept any other fact from Genesis 1?

6. One method of trying to interpret Scripture is to “interpret literally, except where it cannot”. The problem is that “where it cannot” differs among believers.

“Where it cannot” needs to be biblical. Where is it a biblical “cannot” that animals were created after Adam? How is there anything at all in Genesis 1 that is a biblical “cannot”? I do not see even one thing and no one has yet instructed me otherwise.

My faith says we see thru a glass darkly and faithful believers can believe differently about origins and end times.

I agree. Yet at the same time if one reads into the text or takes away from the text it can have serious consequences on what one believes about other important matters. For example hierarchists believe that God originally gave the male a mandate to rule over the female. This isn’t in the text, but this addition has caused a great deal of grief for male/female relations especially in the home and church. I believe that it is important to push through these differences so that people can both understand and be understood. I do not believe that one should say that one is not a brother in Christ because of differing views in this area. I will also strenuously argue my position because each piece is a puzzle piece that fits together. If we remove one important piece, there are gaping holes. I believe that God gave us each piece so that we could work it all through as a second and third witness to his creative plan. It is essential to my belief that God said what He meant and meant what He said.