Talk:Creation
From Theopedia
Project Page: Theopedia:Creation
Contents |
Liberal-looking content in this article
- The word for "God" in this passage is Yahweh, suggesting that it came from a different tradition within Judaism than the first account.
What is meant by a tradition of Judaism? Is this merely referring to the idea that Moses drew from oral tradition as a source for his material, or did someone write down something he saw in a liberal commentary without realizing it was liberal? At any rate, I believe that the use of a different name for God is intentional - to communicate meaning. In this case observe that the name "Yahweh" is associated with God's making a covenant, and here a covenant of works is established with Adam. This content looks really doubtful to me. --Alex Woehr 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like Mrd added this stuff here. It sounds really odd to me too (not to mention there are many other accounts of creation that aren't listed there). I vote to remove the section and integrate it differently at a later time. Jordan Barrett (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- The comment in question is obviously a reference to the JEDP Theory, and yes it is a liberal perspective of higher criticism. I agree that this section needs rework. Thanks, Jim Ellis 02:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Not "how" but "who"
I'd like to recommend that this article take a different approach than the unfortunate usual trends that direct most modern studies of Creation. Today we are stuck on how God created everything because it appears to be the best weapon against the idea of those who think that there is no God and so he did not create anything. This is such a cheapening of the Creation story. I think if we look at the Creation story, there's far less about how God created everything, and the Author seems far more concerned with explaining through the story Who created everything. That is, the Creation story is God's self-revelation. It captures God's desire for relationship and self-expression within that relationship. It is not evolution or science which has wrecked the beauty of the Creation story but that Christians degrade something so wonderful by allowing themselves to be duped into using it as a weapon again something which hardly qualify as a deserving enemy. There is so much more profound and important things going on here than telling Darwin to suck an egg (or a chicken, which, by the way, did come first). There's no sense in using a flashlight to search for the Sun to find if it is shining. You're far better off looking away from the Sun itself and just enjoying the fact that it has truly risen and now you can see everything clearly. (to paraphrase someone else ;) Jason Gabler 23:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree and disagree with you. :) I agree that we should not turn creation into a mere response or weapon to use in apologetics. If it is reduced to this then we are in trouble. Furthermore, issues like evolution should not determine the formulation or proclamation of Christian doctrines. However, while creation may primarily tell us who God is, it also accomplishes the fact of telling us what He did (which I would still say tells us who he is). Thus, the "how" tells us about the "who" in a lot of ways. It thus could (perhaps should) be "How and who" rather than only "how" or only "who." God did create everything, and it is not wrong to focus on this in light of contemporary reactions or issues in our culture that need a reply. Yet again, if we get stuck merely replying to anything and everything, and our replies begin to (re)define creation this way, we have problems. Maybe I'm missing what you meant. Lastly, read what I wrote over here (under " Added project page - Creation") and let me know what you think. Jordan Barrett (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm - I agree that the exact details are not necessarily clear from Scripture. Frankly, the scientific theories that creationists propound (and everyone else, for that matter) change fairly frequently because they are based on scientific evidence. What matters is revelation about God; all the Scriptures declare God in Christ. But the only way that God can be communicated to us is through symbols - largely through His works. (In case you didn't notice, this is beginning to sound like a forum discussion!) But the aspects of how creation occurred that the Bible highlights are precious and monumental in significance. For example, God created material things with His mere word. That reveals to us His power. Scripture emphasizes some details. Scripture itself draws attention to the importance of the fact that God commanded the light to shine out of darkness; that it was the word of God that formed the heavens (Hebrews 11:3); that the creation took place in six days, and God rested the seventh (Exodus 20:11). So perhaps we should try to emphasize only the aspects of creation that God emphasizes, making very clear their significance to our knowledge of God. --Alex Woehr 02:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Jordan, its the difference between defining "how" in verbs or adverbs. Comparing geological evidence (etc.) for and against Creationism is not the sort of "how" that divulges the "who". (This is not 100% true, I admit, but perhaps 99% :) On the other hand, when we say God does this in such and such a way (adverb), denoting purpose, then "Who" is revealed. E.g. God creates things in a certain order; the level of detail and care he takes; the intentional interconnectedness of the stages of creation; how God frames the story, well, theologically; etc. I think we are agreeing? While I do not want to turn Creation into information and science, I also do not want to let it become purely allegory. This is not a plea for some sort of balance, but admitting that the text is that powerful, it is able to speak in a myriad of ways. My intent was to raise a red flag against the usual reductionist approach, not denying the breadth in which the text may speak to us. — unsigned comment by Jason Gabler (talk • contribs)
Scripture quotations
Does anybody else think that the Scriptural quotations near the beginning should be moved into a "Central Passages" section? It seems like this is the pattern for other pages. Perhaps we should have a separate page to analyze the doctrine of Creation by treating its role in Scriptural revelation. That brings up the question of Biblical Theology versus Systematic; see this. --Alex Woehr 03:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Doubt expressed in article
The following content was in the introduction:
- 'Old earth creationism' does not translate to belief in evolution. Although there are "Theistic Evolutionists," most old earth creationist hold to one of many (?) Special Creation models.
Should {{citation_needed}} be inserted in place of the question mark, or should the content be removed until we can check this assertion? I removed the question mark for the time being since it looks pretty ridiculous. --Alex Woehr 13:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Removal - Biblical accounts of creation
I removed these so they can be further discussed or so that they can be better integrated at a later time.
The bible offers three mutually-compatible accounts of creation:
- Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth..." This account takes the reader from initial Chaos (formless void) to a world fully populated with plants, animals, and people. The word for "God" in this passage is Elohim;
- Genesis 2:4b - 2:25: "When the Lord God made the Earth and the heavens..." gives a brief review of the first account, and then focuses on the creation of people and their initial residence in the Garden of Eden. The word for "God" in this passage is Yahweh, suggesting that it came from a different tradition within Judaism than the first account;
- John 1:1 - 1:5: "In the beginning was the Word..." reviews the whole creation story, very briefly, and focuses on where Jesus was and what Jesus was doing. Two persons of God figure in this passage: God the father theos and Jesus the Word logos.
Jordan Barrett (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits
I made some fairly major edits, and after doing so, realized I should have said something beforehand. First why: I had yet to really read through the article to see what the fuss (not in a negative way) was all about. After doing so I was taken back and thought we needed to start the article over. What I have there is definitely not final (or this wouldn't be a wiki!) and so please feel free to revise, add/delete, or even say that what is there is no good. The article is still basic (not just because we have empty sections) in that we can integrate many of the suggestions already made. Jordan Barrett (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
To what extent an article?
To what extent do we want this to be an article about creation, and to what extent would it function better as a sort of article-portal? I'm thinking that there are all sorts of other issues which spin off (in one way or another) from the Christian doctrine of creation, like environmental concern for instance. Given that this page has a direct link from the front page, do we want to make sure that those sorts of issues are raised here with appropriate links? Philip Walker 19:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- What might help is to remember the content should be theological. Jason Gabler 00:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Philip - yes, this should be a portal-like article (like God). And yes, it should be primarily theological. Thus, e.g., the main theme of this article should not be connected to apologetics. Jordan Barrett (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah; it's probably (in terms of links to apologetics) of a lesser order than arguments for the existence of God. You'll note I started a stub on the environment, with a few links and the briefest of introductions. I was thinking that it might be an appropriate "other issue". And, when I have chance to work on it, that article itself most certainly will be theological. I don't sully myself with politics! : ) Phil Walker (Wooster) 09:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think an article on the environment is great! We definitely need to understand how Christians need to be stewards of it. In fact, Douglas Moo recently wrote on article in JETS (49:3) titled "Nature in the New Creation: New Testament Eschatology and the Environment" that looks really good. Hopefully they'll catch up with their online articles and we can link to that too. Jordan Barrett (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
