Jack the Bodiless

Now is probably a good time to remind ourselves of the Genesis worldview, so that we're "on the same page", so to speak:

(From the New American Bible, St. Joseph edition)

No turtles, but plenty of other inaccuracies.

However, you already seem to be implying that much of Genesis shouldn't be taken literally, so I don't yet see where you're going with this.

Asha'man

This passage is generally interpreted to refer to the sun and the moon. However, it clearly shows an utter ignorance of basic astronomy. It displays all the knowledge we would expect from a bronze age myth, and nothing more.

The Moon is not a light. It is a rock, illuminated by sunlight. Surely ancient Hebrew had a word for “rock”? I also suspect they also knew the difference between being in the sunlight and being in the shade, since they lived in a desert. The Moon does not rule the night, it actually spends half it’s time on the daylight side of the earth, and is frequently absent from the night sky.

The sun is clearly identified as something different than the stars. As we all know, the sun is actually a fairly typical star among the 70 sextillion stars in the universe. However, it seems that 6.9999_ sextillion of those stars are merely a footnote in the creation of the universe. Again, this clearly shows the story is from the perspective of an ancient goathered, and has no guidance from an omnipotent being who just created the whole kit and caboodle.

As PTET has already pointed out, this passage happens on day 4 of creation, after the creation of the earth, water, and even flowering plants. However, in actuality, we know that some stars existed within a few hundred million years from the big bang. The Sun and the Earth weren’t created for another 9 billion years after the first stars. Flowering plants, on the other hand, are around a couple hundred million years old, and therefore more than 4 billion years younger than both the Sun and the Earth. Again, this account demonstrates no concept of the actual order of events, or even the order of magnitude of the time involved. Since the events in Genesis are clearly broken into ordered days, and each event is identified as to which day it occurred on, I see no reason to read the account as non-chronological.

The first account of creation in Genesis simply demonstrates no concept of what actually happened, or the order in which it happened, or the timeframe involved. This is exactly the opposite of what I would expect if this passage had even a smidgen of supernatural guidance.

Mageth

Note that in my post above, the following are quotes from Mike(ATL) and should have been bolded. I was trying to correct this when the forum went down yesterday (did I do that???):

I am not one of those Christians. I do not understand how a Christian can trust God but can not believe that He created the universe,
...
that He created man from the dust of the ground, that Satan inhabited a serpent, etc.
...
As I see it, the honest Christian either believes Genesis or doesn't believe in the God of the OT and thus Jesus of the NT.

spin

Why do you assume that there was a single author? The text is clearly composite in all scholarly analyses.

No, divine fiat shows that God is above those physically involved gods creating universes. It is a mere statement and it is done

Bad translation.

"In the beginning when God..."

That's what the Hebrew grammar indicates.

What you are doing is keeping the bits you want and forgetting the rest. You won't buy the made-up myth, yet you'll have some of the reasons for the myth. And while we are at it the myth has God creating the world out of pre-existent matter.

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and empty."

Not great starting material to our modern mind, but that ignores the beauty of the passage, for from this formless state God takes three days to give it form and in the next three days he populates it. And on the seventh day he rested (though being God he didn't need to); this was only the institutionalisation in myth of the sabbath.

First day, day and night; fourth day, sun and moon
Second day, sea and sky; fifth day, fish and birds
Third day, land; sixth day, animals and man

This is (great) artifice and the reality checks that our fellow forum dwellers are trying to bring you seem to miss your problem. You aren't into reality. Genesis is obviously to us all not about reality. You have added to the artifice to make the text acceptable to you in this scientific age. Hey, I can like it for what it is, but I think I can see it for what it is and don't need to dress it up like you do.

But isn't this true of any myth? Perhaps you just don't like the word "myth".

Who believes that Abraham existed?

But "believe" is the magic word.

It is obvious to most everybody outside the religion and many within that Adam and Eve didn't exist. They are a means of dealing with the perceived way of the world at the time of the text's writing. Adam and Eve institutionalise the relationship between man and woman, as woman was created from man she is subordinate, but it also explains why people get married, ie to return to a whole with the rib coming back. We are institutionalising the world around our writers, saying how and why it came about. We know a little bit more than they did, but our knowledge shouldn't detract from the value of the text in its reflection of human efforts to face the world. (God, of course, is just one of those human efforts.)

I don't think it is possible to do what you want people here to do, ie to convince you away from your beliefs about Genesis. The approach that you evince shields you from any convincing. It's not myth, but it's not strictly real.


spin

Mike(ATL)

Hey all, I tried to post this yesterday after I saw PTET's question which actually was posted a little before my first reply. But as you're probably aware the forum went down at that time. So this is exactly what I wrote in reply to him, in the mean time I'll read the rest of what you wrote and respond to that later tonight.

I'd like to avoid an evolution/creation debate if I can. Basically, I believe the timeline you presented is a very very bad guess. We have very poor evidence to make very poor guesses about when what first appeared. I believe that a portion of the scientific culture has accepted theory atop theory over the years to come up with answers to questions we do not have the resources to answer. I don't think that means the Genesis account goes against good science. There are many scientists who believe the Genesis account or things other than the timeline you presented.

There is no reason to accept the creation account in Genesis by itself over any other ancient myth except maybe that it is not so obviously flawed as others. The reason I, and many others, believe is that the creation account in Genesis is a part of a book that proves reputable in other areas. Let me know if you would like a more detailed answer than that.

When I hear myth, I think fiction. I don't believe Genesis is fiction. I'm really not interested in these word games. Label my views however you want to label them, just don't expect me to accept it.

Now that you know more about what I believe is my challenge more clear? Convince me that I should not believe Genesis is the word of God. This shouldn't be too complicated if Genesis is obvious fiction, just tell me where Genesis is wrong. If Genesis is wrong I can't believe it's the word of God.

Mageth

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
I'd like to avoid an evolution/creation debate if I can. Basically, I believe the timeline you presented is a very very bad guess. We have very poor evidence to make very poor guesses about when what first appeared. I believe that a portion of the scientific culture has accepted theory atop theory over the years to come up with answers to questions we do not have the resources to answer. I don't think that means the Genesis account goes against good science. There are many scientists who believe the Genesis account or things other than the timeline you presented.

Well, why don't you take this little note, flush it out, and post it as the OP in a thread in the Evolution/Creation forum?

There is no reason to accept the creation account in Genesis by itself over any other ancient myth except maybe that it is not so obviously flawed as others.

But wait - if our scientific understanding of the "timeline" etc. is as flawed as you claim, against what yardstick are you measuring the myths?

Now that you know more about what I believe is my challenge more clear? Convince me that I should not believe Genesis is the word of God.

With your dim view of science and "bright" view of this God fellow, how is this possible? Further, why could Genesis not be largely myth and still the word of God? In other words, why couldn't God choose to convey truths about himself to us through myth (note that your definition of myth as "fiction" is not adequate), rather than reciting or revealing a literal historical account to someone? Why would God think it important we know exactly and literally how he created the earth et al?

This shouldn't be too complicated if Genesis is obvious fiction, just tell me where Genesis is wrong.

Well, that's easy. Start reading at 1:1.

If Genesis is wrong I can't believe it's the word of God.

Again, why not? Here, you seem to have a rather limited view of God and what he might or might not choose to do (e.g. why would he not choose to communicate what he wants us to know through myth?)

Doctor X

Mike:

With all due respect, you have to have an open mind--and it does not have to be so open your brain falls out.

You have preconcluded ["Preconcluded?"--Ed.] that Genesis and everything is the word of a deity--you even use bold.

Thus, your response to PTET lacks substance in favor of fallacy:

Unfortunately you cannot given your response:

Unfortunately, it is not a "guess" though you may wish to characterize it. I will not write for PTET or others, but I am sure they would be happy to give you the evidence for this "guess"--something you have not done for your "word of God."

On the contrary, "we" have given you evidence otherwise--such as the multi-authorship of the myth and its reliance upon previous myths. That you refuse to address this evidence remains your error.

. . . and I believe I will have that torrid affair with Uma . . . provided she lifts that restraining order . . . unfortunately "belief" does not feed the pit bull . . . the neighborhood children do [Stop that!--Ed.] "Scientific culture" rather did not like what science showed them about the bible, frankly, but evidence won out. Heck, SCIENCE [Cue Thunderclap--Ed.] did not like the fact quantum mechanics was necessary, but evidence demonstrated that the Newtonian conception was not complete.

Period.

Faith does not enter the picture.

Unfortunately your belief holds as much weight as mine . . . though I am sure Uma will lift that restraining order . . . someday . . . you however are stuck with the Priestly myth which has a "waters of the deep"--where is it? It is not on Earth because Earth was not yet formed. PTET already demonstrated the absurdity of the sequence of the P creation . . . you ignored it and tried to brush it aside as a "guess."

Sorry, not good enough. It is not SCIENCE.

Ipse dixit. There is a Harvard psychiatrist who believes aliens have nothing better to do than wastes gobs of . . . I do not know . . . credits . . . breaking the laws of physics to give humans rectal probes. Actually, there are not "many" scientists who know anything about geology/palentology who believe this--as you would know if you bothered, frankly, to read the rebuttals over on E/C. BIBLICAL SCHOLARS [Cue Triangle--Ed.] do not believe the Genesis account.

I see your appeal to authority and trump it with actual authority.

BWA!HA!HA!HA! Oh, let me see . . . having to create man and woman twice is not "flawed?" Having the sequence of creation wrong is not "flawed?"

You have a most singular definition of "flawed."

You have already been refered to evidence AGAINST that assertion. That you choose to avoid it remains you and your strawmen's error.

What you believe is irrelevant.

Show evidence that it is not fiction or, frankly, cease wasting time. If my manner seems "a triffle on the harsh side of strict"--though always "measur'd in manner and speech" of course--it is because you have avoided repeated presentations of the evidence. You cannot pretend it does not exist, and your continued pretense is, frankly, insulting.

Since you have pre-tainted evidence as "guesses" and ignored what has been given to you, please forgive "us" if we do not bother further with your insincere claims.

No one can think I enjoy this. I really do not.

--J.D.

spin

If that's the case, why do you then go on to say the following opinions and conjecture?

As you should know these are scientists with a priori commitments. Isn't that so?

If you want to "avoid an evolution/creation debate", I think you should show that that's what you want to do.

This cashes out to mean you like the Genesis account. In what respect are the other accounts flawed while the Genesis account isn't?

What, like its flood story? The archaeologist Wooley was ecstatic when he found indications of a large flood in Mesopotamia, but then it was shown that such a flood couldn't be seen elsewhere at all to match the same layers. Mesopotamia as we know was subjected to many severe floods. That's what made the land so fertile in ancient times.

How about the table of nations in ch10? This puts the Canaanites under Ham so as to justify the conquest myth, yet the Canaanites were users of the same basic language as the Hebrews and were in Palestine at least in the 14th century BCE. There are some great political choices in it. And when was it written? One wonders why the Egyptian king Shabtaka was included as an eponymous figure, thus dating at least his inclusion to after his lifetime in the 7th century BCE.

Let's move on to the tower of babel myth for an explanation of the development of different languages. As a linguistic description it fails dismally to describe the different families of languages and their subfamilies. The linguistic diversification is not one of every language suddenly developing from one original source, but ancient writers didn't know much about language theory and did the best they could.

I've only reached chapter 12, but to continue to the end would take all day and night with the problems in the text for a modern reader.

I guess you must have a funny idea about reputability. Genesis is a great literary collection, but modern religionists with their religious biases are usually unable to appreciate it. What do they know of the other religions of the time and what the background of thought was? How can you find it reputable when you don't allow yourself to understand it?

I think you are into word games. You don't think it's quite realistic, but it's not myth because myth makes you think of fiction and fiction makes you think of unreal, despite the fact that you don't find it quite real. But I guess your greatest problem is that fiction in this case and in your mind means fake.

How about if we look at the text as the traditions of a group of people, traditions which attempt to deal with the world around them, and the social world in which they lived in, explaining why things were and why they believed what they believed. This neither makes it correct nor fake. They simply had less knowledge of the phenomenal world than we do, but this may be a problem for us.

As I said, no-one can convince a believer to stop believing in one of the props of his belief. The schizophrenic who believes he has a personal companion will continue to believe no matter what other people say or do. So, how can I tell that you are not a closet schizophrenic?


spin

(I have no problem with schizophrenia, it's an understandable adaption to the world, just one that I wouldn't make if I had a choice.)

Dalharuk

I have a problem with the creation of the sun, the moon and stars in genesis: Why have the rays of light of galaxies millions of light-year aways already reached us in... 10 000 years?

And mr God could also explain why he created the moon with craters already on to simulate millions of years of asteroid/meteor collisions.

Also, where did oil come from if Earth is only 10 000 years old?

Why create plants (3rd day) BEFORE the sun (4th day) in the first version? At what temperature was Earth in the 3 first days? And since it was so cold before the sun, there was NO atmosphere (well, you could argue there was CO2 and O2 (LOL!!!) but no water vapor...), so when the sun was created, the intense sun shined directly on Earth without the protection of the atmosphere. Result? Imagine burst of 200 degrees hot water columns rising to the sky, lead turning liquid, and all plants previously created burning on the spot. The chrisitian god is an idiot.

Genesis is ridiculous.

Dalharuk

Mr God could also explain to me where all of his dinosaurs are now if humans lived along with them. Maybe by some coincidence, they all missed the Ark. Noah was supposed to hae a pair of EVERY animals...



Tribesmen didn't knew about dinosaurs, even with the help of their little god.