Comments on: Creation in Genesis 1-3 (Part 7-Summary and Conclusion) http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/creation-in-genesis-1-3-part-7-summary-and-conclusion/ Exploring Mormon Thought, Culture, and Texts Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:35:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: The Yellow Dart http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/creation-in-genesis-1-3-part-7-summary-and-conclusion/#comment-6575 The Yellow Dart Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:25:08 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1681#comment-6575 JTJ, Thanks for stopping by FPR! I believe that Genesis 1-3 are Israelite creation myths (in the technical sense of the word, not in the sense of simply "false" or "untrue"), and that they shouldn't be used to teach science in the classroom. I believe that there are very good reasons to think that the author of the J account of creation wrote it purposefully as archetypal and symbolic. I think that the P (or H) account of creation in Genesis 1.1-2.4a is broken into discrete days because it was probably read as part of a week long Israelite festival. Hence, the days mentioned in the account are not meant to be taken as literal days; besides, light is created on day 1 before there are even heavenly bodies to make the light (they were made on day 4)! I don't know what your religious or theological background is, but you still might be interested in reading the article "Adam's Navel" by Keith Norman in Dialogue. I don't agree with everything he writes, but it is an interesting read nonetheless. http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=15400&CISOSHOW=15302&REC=9 Best wishes, TYD JTJ,

Thanks for stopping by FPR!

I believe that Genesis 1-3 are Israelite creation myths (in the technical sense of the word, not in the sense of simply “false” or “untrue”), and that they shouldn’t be used to teach science in the classroom. I believe that there are very good reasons to think that the author of the J account of creation wrote it purposefully as archetypal and symbolic. I think that the P (or H) account of creation in Genesis 1.1-2.4a is broken into discrete days because it was probably read as part of a week long Israelite festival. Hence, the days mentioned in the account are not meant to be taken as literal days; besides, light is created on day 1 before there are even heavenly bodies to make the light (they were made on day 4)!

I don’t know what your religious or theological background is, but you still might be interested in reading the article “Adam’s Navel” by Keith Norman in Dialogue. I don’t agree with everything he writes, but it is an interesting read nonetheless.

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/dialogue&CISOPTR=15400&CISOSHOW=15302&REC=9

Best wishes,

TYD

]]> By: JTJ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/creation-in-genesis-1-3-part-7-summary-and-conclusion/#comment-6574 JTJ Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:01:59 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1681#comment-6574 TYD, knowing and researching the history and literary sources of Genesis, what is your opinion of organizations like Answers in Genesis, or the Discovery Institute, with respect to their belief in the literal accounts of Genesis? TYD, knowing and researching the history and literary sources of Genesis, what is your opinion of organizations like Answers in Genesis, or the Discovery Institute, with respect to their belief in the literal accounts of Genesis?

]]> By: David G. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2009/04/creation-in-genesis-1-3-part-7-summary-and-conclusion/#comment-6573 David G. Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:24:10 +0000 http://www.faithpromotingrumor.com/?p=1681#comment-6573 Thanks, TYD. Thanks, TYD.

]]>