Dust

Now that we know it did, it isn’t inconceivable, but before that, scientist thought that it took much longer. And as portrayed, water came first. As you said, there can be no life without water. Also notice that in that third day, the word “create� was not used. The universe was already equipped for life and just needed organization to bring it together.

In scientific terms…Yes.

Oh hog-wash. Your taking things too literal.

Your also assuming that everything had to end up a full grown tree, ect., before the end of the third day.

That is, at least, the earliest we have evidence of grass.

Looks like some of you are as guilty of being literalist as you claim others to be. The way I understand it, even Moses, near his death, exhorted the people three times to read the Bible as a text having within it a subtext harboring multiple meanings, a song, a poem. (Deut. 31:19, 30; 32: 44)

There were also some Rabbi that wrote explicitly that Genesis chapter 1 is a parable, written in a way that intentionally conceals information. An un-explained parable is simply a riddle.

simian

If Genesis is continued to be read from the point where the above quote leaves off, you will see that a second creation myth is stated. One with significant differences from the first. There are appearantly bits and peices of 20 or so creation stories in the Bible. If Christians actually read and studied the bible, there would not be the fundamentalists we see in the US today.

Simian

Sven

I assume nothing. The bible says that trees were there before the sun, I say that this is wrong. That's all.

Yes. Since the fossil record shows no grass pollen before the Eocene, it's most reasonable to conclude that grass developped not until then.


I only state that if one reads these verses literally, then one gets a contradiction to scientific findings. I nowhere said that one has to read them literally.

No problem, I can totally agree with this. Please tell this creationists, not me. BTW, as far as I know, most scholars agree today that the five books attributed to Moses were most likely not written by him. But if you want to discuss this, please ask the experts in BC&H.

Naked Ape

Just out of curiosity, what is your enterpretation of the thread title, specifically the first part where it says "To Literalists:"? I am not an apatheist, just a garden variety ex-christian ex-youth minister who read too many of the wrong sort of books (damn those inconvenient facts!). I am familiar with the documentary hypothesis, and I accept it.

I am not so arrogant to assume that literalists do not think, but they obviously think about these things rather differently than non-literalist theists and atheists. I don't imagine that I will be convinced of the literalist position, but I am curious about it. Likewise I don't imagine that any literalists will be convinced of your (or my) position, since conformity to what you and I may believe are the known facts is not high on their priority list.

I have never heard what I would consider a reasonable explanation for magic books or revelations from the ghost in the universe, but then again I don't believe in ghosts or magic. If you start with belief, and have a reasonably agile mind you will be able to provide justifications for that belief, but this tends to be percieved as ad-hoc rationalization by the unbelievers.

In the end, this literlaist/non-literalist dispute boils down to the question "What are the known facts and how do we know them?" aka epistemology.



Cheers,

Naked Ape

Dust

Chapter 2 is not necessarily a second creation account. It may very well be a continuation of events written poetically, and simply mentioning, or restating some of creation in no particular order. Notice that the seventh day was never concluded in chapter 2 as the first 6 days were, and that it doesn’t mention anything about the water, or firmament, ect. The biggest purpose for chapter 2 that I see is the description of the garden of Eden, which takes most of the chapter.

There is no reason to take mention of creation elsewhere in the Bible as contradiction to the first (chapter 1).

Dust

Ah, my bad.

Sven

This tends to get back being a topic for BC&H...

Then why the phrase
"4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." ?
Looks like the beginning of a creation account to me.

[emphasis mine]
Let's have a look:

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [3] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Comment: First, man.

" 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food."

Comment: After putting man in the garden, he makes trees.

"18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air."

Comment: After seeing that man needs help, he makes animals.

"But for Adam [8] no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [9] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib [10] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

Comment: After seeing that there was no suitable helper, he made Eve.

And this you call "in no particular order"?

And Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
strongly sounds like if god created Adam and Eve simultaneously, not as suggested in Genesis 2.

When reading the Genesis 1 and 2 without the number of the verses and chapters and without the headings added later (I think those are in nearly all bibles), they very much sound like two different creation accounts.

Madkins007

I LOVE the 'Religious Intolerance' website.

Yeah, I know this post was directed at the literalists, but I could not pass it up. It was not that many years ago (well, OK, about 15) that I was amongst their number and the habit of looking at things from their point of view dies hard!