Talk:Study of Genesis/Overview

From the article: " ... - if the Creation account is proven false, it invalidates much if not all of the rest of scripture. For example, if God did not create man, then man does not have to answer to God for His actions." If evolution was the mechanism used by God to create man, then nothing has to be proven false, or invalidated. Many Christians have thus reconciled evolution with God's creation of man, given some discretion to the literallity of the 24 hour day during the Creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.198.27 (talk • contribs)

True. And even among those who disagree with evolution and agree with the account of Genesis, some lenience in interpretation is often taken with these passages, taking "day", for example, to mean "an unspecific period of time", etc. The Jade Knight ^(d'viser) 10:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you want the academic viewpoint

I am a retired computer science teacher and committed reader of scripture, but as outlined here the approach seems to not want to deal with the academic viewpoint of the Hebrew Bible that has been built up over the last century or so. I will never be able to go the a university to study the Bible but I would like to and I would like to consider that Wikiversity might be the place to work that out. However the current "tone" of Biblical Studies seems to be be focused on a much more literal interpretation and if that is the case do the originators even want to have other viewpoints brought forward. Looking at Genesis without considering the work that has been done with the Documentary Hypothesis, form criticism, canonical criticism, redaction criticism etc. etc. seems to be a retreat to the 19th century. So hopefully someone will pick up this query and let me know if there is a place within Wikiversity that would be open to building a broader view of the Hebrew Bible. Billbc 02:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)