Hell Mark,

Well, I for one do believe that God created mankind and made him in His image, and that mankind did fall into sin. What I am unsure of , however, is how exactly did all this happen. You may say, "Well, it's right there in scripture; read it for yourself." The problem with that approach is that we have no business reading our twentieth-century modern (and scientific) context for thinking into the creation account when we can hardly expect to believe that the Ancients wrote from this same context. It seems to be seldom that Christians are exposed to the genre of the style of the creation accounts found in several surrounding cultures in those days. And when a Christian does come in contact with the accounts, it is generally within the framework of an apologist defending the literal six days and 6,000 years tradition by stating that the others cultures just got it wrong; the Bible alone got it right.

What I think is missing, sadly, in the "defense" of the Bible (when this type of approach is used as an apology) is simple understanding of genre.  It isn't that the surrounding cultures "missed" it or "distored" it, it is that they wrote in a style back then that is quite foreign to us today. Yes, they may have been wrong in their theology, but one is not wrong in the style in which one writes. It is therefore impossible to try and defend a traditional or classical view of the creation account in scripture by saying, "Look, first this was made, than that, then this..." That, I don't believe, is even the author's point or God's point; rather, the author is trying to say something very theological (but not literally) correct. You and I may worry about the literalty of the text, but I think God was far more interested in the theology of the text.

Yes, man was created. Yes, man fell (there has to be some realization to these two events, or we are left with no basis, whatsoever, for an understanding of man bearing the image of God or of a theodicy, as you noted), but I think it is virtually impossible to arrive at a clear, concise, literal detailed account of the exact chain of events found in only three chapters of the Bible. I contend, again; that isn't the point of the narrative. The theology, however, is clear, concise, detailed and leaves few questions unanswered (Meph will find those unanswered questions, trust me!).

Finally, it is hardly skepticism that drives my thinking and many others who think along these same lines. We are not skeptical; we are trying to make sense of a genre style of writing that is not at all like ours today (funny how easily we recognize symbolic and metaphorical language as we discuss eschotology—e.g, "The Lord will blow smoke from His nostrils and a sharp sword will come out of His mouth to slay His enemies"—but we miss this same issue when we go to the creation account). Some readers are quite conservative as they approach this issue, others are more liberal. It is not an easy subject to tackle, i.e., if one is trying to get to the details. Again, though, I think the theology is beautifully clear.

 

For the conversation,

 

Starkman