True but the way I see it, in ALL cases, something doesn't come from nothing.
Hmmm, bet you didn't expect to see me say that now did ya!
BTW: Read the chapter 2 creation story from the standpoint of man moving from being a hunter-gather to an agrarian type existence and the story begins to reflect a much more observant writer as to the nature of mankind 10k years ago as he began a transitional process. Adam being made of the soil and in fact the hebrew for Adam being more a transliteration from the word aw-dam or ha-adom (the man) meaning ruddy or red which again can reflect the color of some soils. If you have a Strong's Concordance, you can look up the words translated Adam and man to see what I'm talking about.
Adam was instructed in regards to the garden almost in similar ways someone might tell a person to work the land and what about the word translated garden? In the hebrew it means a walled up or protected area or in another sense you could say that Eden instead of a garden was a kingdom or early city state of some kind. The hebrew word translated garden being gan gan meaning fenced but reflects back to a primitive root word ganan or gaw-nan meaning protect or defend.
When you consider the way the early "Kingdom" of Israel and it's religious symbols in the temple reflect back to the presence of god in the garden, the idea that Jesus was the last Adam so to speak, the idea of the Eden story begins in a way that early semitic man might have by oral traditions told his story of transitioning from hunter-gatherers to agrarian and then with the early Patriarchs, the building of the first city states and organized empires. The metaphysical aspects and the moral implications may have been added later, say during a Mosiac influence or priestly influence (see the "P" source in the documentary hypothesis) and the 2 stories are thus combined into the Eden story we know today.
These are the kinds of discussions that can open up as a result of discussing the creation story and I do agree they have merit but are christians ready for this? Especially in the face of impressionable children? I'd warmly welcome it but I can see real problems especially for fundamental christians.
And even the bible is evolutionary. Read it in relation to god, how god interacts with man and even the nature of how god manifests himself and god is a idea in continuing flux. For example, Adam and even Abraham walked with god almost in the same manner and we would walk with each other (even ate a meal with) but Moses was not allowed to see god except as a manifestation of a burning bush or as a mountain spewing fire and smoke. No man but the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies out of fear of seeing god and thus be struck down with death. And it's the Moses god that so resembles the Midianite volcano god and it's worth noting that Moses spent much time in Midian before returning to Egypt and this region does have active volcanic activity. And then in early means, god had man redeem for his sin by one measure of sacrifice and then during the temple era of ancient Israel, the method of sacrifice was done in numerous methods and then we have the final sacrifice in Jesus. Regardless of the reasons, it's still a evolving process to salvation throughout time so god's way are evolving ones. Can we be sure he won't change his mind again?
Again, are christians prepared to have their children exposed to such ideas and such discussions in the first place?
I am not trying to "hijack" this thread but I would value some of your opinions on the following.
