Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: mm@blake.u.washington.edu (Eric Gorr) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Creation Message-ID: Date: 5 Nov 90 09:59:56 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Washington, Seattle Lines: 23 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I am in debate right now with a room mate on how to interpret specifically the account of creation. What I lack the knowledge of is those "experts" within the christian faith which do not support the literial interpretation of the account of creation..... Thanx.. [If you're willing to read something, go to your University library and take a look at the commentaries section. Even public universities normally have lots of commentaries on Genesis. Generally those who do not accept a 7-day creation regard the creation stories as quite frankly myths, however myths that have been used to convey important theological messages. Comparing the Babylonian and other sources with the form the stories take in Gen. will make it clear greatly how the Biblical view differs from the original context of the stories. There is generally little discussion about what the editor actually believed as far as historical accuracy. I think some critics take it for granted that the editor actually believed the literal historicity of the accounts. My preference would be that if you believe the creation stories are mythological, you consider the possibility that the person responsible for putting them in Gen. recognized them as such. This issue has been discussed before, so I'm giving only a capsule. --clh]