Creationism in the Genesis Account

Ryan Robinson

It is easiest to identify Ryan as both theologian and tech guy. By day, Ryan is a Technical Consultant work with PeaceWorks Technology Solutions. There, he works on websites, CRMs, and SharePoint implementations. Along with blogging here, Ryan is a founding member of the MennoNerds blogging network and a contributor to the book A Living Alternative.

5 Responses

  1. AssumedName says:

    I’m with you on this, Ryan. Why does the process matter? Then again, I’ve steadily moved from the top of your list to the bottom, from my early days as a Young Earther to my present Evolutionary Creation stance. I’m still wrestling with the theology, but the science doesn’t seem all that controversial to me anymore.

  2. Oliver says:

    Why does it matter? As someone who has moved from bottom to top on your list, If I start from Genesis, I might get lost, as you have in pondering the meanings of words like “day” and “from evening to morning”. But in utilizing a biblical hermeneutic, the first question I ask is “What did Jesus believe?” And then you read through the Gospels and see Jesus reference Jonah’s time in a fish as a real event, Adam and Eve as real ancestors, and other events that are written off by Evolutionary Creationists, What do you do with that? Either Jesus is God, and as such, doesn’t lie, or reference myths and legends as realities, or Jesus isn’t God. That’s why I continue to land the plane, uncomfortably, in a 6 day literal creation. If “science” argues with Jesus, Jesus wins. Science has been known to be wrong, Jesus hasn’t.

    • That’s a very good question for starting with when trying to find a hermeneutic for reading Scripture. I’ve said elsewhere that I think the best arguments for a 6-day creation and literal Adam/Eve are in the New Testament and not in the accounts themselves which are very ambiguous in their genre. I agree that if there is a difference of opinion between science and Jesus, Jesus clearly wins, and your question of whether there is a difference of opinion is an important one. That’s why I can fully respect your position even though I disagree with your conclusion on this minor question.

      I’m just not as convinced that there was a difference of opinion. How we evolutionary creationists would approach Jesus’ references to Adam and Eve are to ask if he really did believe that they were literal human beings created at the end of a literal 6-day process. I’m not convinced he did; as a Jewish rabbi he would have taught like other Jewish rabbis, which was (and still is) nowhere near as interested in the literal historical facts than they were (and still are) in embracing the stories of Scripture and how it applies to life. In other words, a myth *could* be true in the big sense that it points us to a closer relationship with the Truth (Jesus) even if isn’t literal historical science. Truth is bigger than science. The ancient world understood this far better than the modern West does. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t also historical, of course, and I wouldn’t be offended if it was but I don’t think a science lesson was Jesus’ point the same way I don’t think it was the author of Genesis’ point. That’s the same kind of teaching that I’m encouraging the Christian church embraces today instead of arguing over something that doesn’t really change how we live.

    • Michael Snow says:

      The problem with the YEC “6 day literal creation” is that it fails to take the first two verses of the Bible literally. It is as if they do not literally exist.

  1. June 6, 2013

    […] Methods of Creation […]