Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mike(ATL) · 11-19-2003, 10:17 AM

I promised I'd do this a while back and I've been putting it off because I usually don't have the time it deserves. So forgive me if it takes me a while to reply to your criticisms.

Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up. After all if God does not know His creation how can we believe anything else He says. I'd like to give you the opportunity now to demonstrate to myself and anyone else reading this why Genesis is myth and not the word of God. Keep in mind that Genesis was written by a person in ancient times that had no concept of the universe to a people that had no concept of the universe. However, the words were inspired by God so there should be no facts given that show God has no concept of His own creation. For example, the earth is not sitting on the back of a turtle.

So with that in mind, convince me that I should not believe Genesis is the word of God. I'll do my best to leave no criticism unanswered, any help from my believing brothers and sisters would be much appreciated. Also for my sake, if you see that someone else has already brought up your point, please don't bring it up again unless you have something new to add.

** Let me also warn you before you post that I intend to save this thread when it's done and point to it any time in the future when someone tells me I can't believe in the God of the Bible because of Genesis. Ideally I'd like you to cross this off your list of reasons not to believe the Bible but realistically I doubt that will happen just because we are all a stubborn people by nature. Probably the best I can hope for is to reassure any believers that Genesis is not a book that needs to be ignored for your faith to be valid.

Stew · 11-19-2003, 10:22 AM

I think you might be well served by defining your take on the Bible's genesis account.

Do you take it, as a whole, literally or metaphorically or take some parts literally and others metaphorically.

.

Vinnie · 11-19-2003, 10:35 AM

"""""""""Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up. """"""""

Are you sure people argue this? Do these not-so-intelligent posters know that "Genesis" was written centuries before books like say the "Gospel of Mark."

How does judgment on one influence the other? You can't ignore the individuality of the various biblical books.

Vinnie

Mageth · 11-19-2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up.

I've never seen anyone here make that argument. Got any links?

I'd like to give you the opportunity now to demonstrate to myself and anyone else reading this why Genesis is myth and not the word of God.

Well, first, the ball is really in your court to demonstrate why the Genesis account should be taken literally.

That said, we know it's myth because it simply does not match the evidence for the origin of the universe, the earth, and life. In other words, Genesis does not explain reality.

Keep in mind that Genesis was written by a person in ancient times that had no concept of the universe to a people that had no concept of the universe.

You can say that and yet you're disputing that it's mythical?

However, the words were inspired by God

Were they? You mean you believe the words were inspired by God.

so there should be no facts given that show God has no concept of His own creation. For example, the earth is not sitting on the back of a turtle.

Nor was woman created from the rib of a man. Nor do serpents talk.

So with that in mind, convince me that I should not believe Genesis is the word of God.

Personally, you can believe what you wish.

** Let me also warn you before you post that I intend to save this thread when it's done and point to it any time in the future when someone tells me I can't believe in the God of the Bible because of Genesis.

Most if not all atheists I know argue just the opposite - that recognizing the Genesis account as myth doesn't preclude you from believing in God.

Ideally I'd like you to cross this off your list of reasons not to believe the Bible but realistically I doubt that will happen just because we are all a stubborn people by nature.

It's not on my "list" in the way you portray it in the first place.

Probably the best I can hope for is to reassure any believers that Genesis is not a book that needs to be ignored for your faith to be valid.

And I, an atheist, will assure any believers that Genesis is not a book that needs to be interpreted literally for your faith to be "valid". I know many Christians who do just that (recognize Genesis as mythical).

PTET · 11-19-2003, 11:26 AM

Hi Mike

Can you please explain to my why Genesis 1 says that fruit trees appeared on earth (11-13) two creation days before animal life first appread? (20).

According to the TalkOrigins page Evolutionary and Geological Timelines , the first plants with roots (ferns) didn't appear until around 350 million years ago - 120 million years after millipedes appeared as the first land animals.

That seems to establish conclusively that Genesis and science cannot be reconciled. Now, I'm sure you accept that every other creation account is mythological - that is to say, a historical fiction told primarily to validate religious beliefs. What reason is there to accept Genesis as anything other than another creation myth?

I look forward to reading your reply.

Regards

PTET

Mike(ATL) · 11-19-2003, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Mageth: I've never seen anyone here make that argument. Got any links?

If you insist, I've heard this from a few different people since I've started posting here. Here is the first one I've found from one of my old threads.

Quote:

Here, Biff the Unclean: Yet if he created it wouldn't you expect the Bible to actually know what "it" is? But Genesis has no idea what the Earth looks like, what it's vast natural history is, where it is in space. It doesn't know what the sun or the stars are. It thinks the sky is a solid dome. It doesn't even know a simple fact like evolution but says that people came from a magic pile of dust and a spare rib.
This is not "a reasonable explanation", this is nonsense, a work of fiction.

Quote:

Mageth: And I, an atheist, will assure any believers that Genesis is not a book that needs to be interpreted literally for your faith to be "valid". I know many Christians who do just that (recognize Genesis as mythical).

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.

Quote:

Stew: I think you might be well served by defining your take on the Bible's genesis account.

Do you take it, as a whole, literally or metaphorically or take some parts literally and others metaphorically.

Maybe that would be best:

My interpretation of Genesis comes not from trying to explain away certain parts but of reading it as a whole and looking at what the author found to be most important. I do not believe Genesis is any attempt to explain creation. Saying God spoke this and that into existence is no explanation other then that it gives credit to God for creating the universe. I think it's obvious reading the beginning of Genesis that the primary purpose of the creation account was to glorify God. It starts, "In the beginning God." Another main purpose, it seems, is to describe man's place in God's creation. I generally don't buy into the "metaphor excuse" as I think people use it as an easy answer. However, when the author speaks of days before there was a sun, it seems obvious that the detailing of how God created the universe is more of a story for our benefit, but a story rooted in truth, not just a made up myth. So I don't believe certain parts are to be taken super-literally, but I believe it is a general account given for our benefit. I certainly do not believe the Bible starts out with a nice story that has no truth to it. Why believe that Abraham existed but not believe that Adam and Eve existed? Any Christian who believes that is fooling themselves unnecessarily in my opinion.

PTET · 11-19-2003, 12:04 PM

Hi Mike.

You write:

Quote:

I think it's obvious reading the beginning of Genesis that the primary purpose of the creation account was to glorify God. It starts, "In the beginning God." Another main purpose, it seems, is to describe man's place in God's creation. I generally don't buy into the "metaphor excuse" as I think people use it as an easy answer. However, when the author speaks of days before there was a sun, it seems obvious that the detailing of how God created the universe is more of a story for our benefit, but a story rooted in truth, not just a made up myth.

I think you should clarify what exactly you mean by the word "myth". Here's a dictionary definition:

Quote:

A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society...

If you want to argue that Genesis is not a "myth", then you'll have to show a difference between it and the creation account of any other religion. In short, since you don't require Genesis to be "literally true", there's absolutely nothing to stop you accepting Genesis as a basically "fictionalalized" account, while still believing in the Christian or Jewish God...

PTET

Doctor X · 11-19-2003, 12:20 PM

Mike:

As others have noted:

Quote:

Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up.

you create a strawman of sorts. The examples you give do not support your contention. On the contrary, they note that the fact that Genesis is, rather than "reads like," a myth sinks the inerrant argument. As for the rest of the Bible, there are methods to evaluate other portions. That the writers would include myth does speak towards their intent, of course.

You have avoided PTET's question which satisfied your openning post.

You have been advised to read some of the basic scholarship numerous times. To begin you would recognize that Genesis is not "a" myth but a redacted blending of the myths of two--primarily--authors.

Must confess, this does all rather beg the question why do you need to believe a myth is true?

--J.D.

Mageth · 11-19-2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
If you insist, I've heard this from a few different people since I've started posting here. Here is the first one I've found from one of my old threads.

I honestly don't see how that quote from Biff supports your assertion that "Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up." Biff didn't say that he believes "all of the Bible was made up." Maybe he believes that, maybe he doesn't. That quote doesn't show 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,

One can believe that and still recognize the Genesis account as mythical. Many Christians do.

that He created man from the dust of the ground, that Satan inhabited a serpent, etc.

Well, the Genesis account doesn't indicate that the serpent was Satan in the first place. That's a later interpretation.

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.

Nice "No True Scotsman" argument there. I happen to know many honest Christians that don't believe accepting a literal interpretation of Genesis precludes one from believing in the "God of the OT" and thus "Jesus of the NT" (btw, I thought they were supposed to be one and the same?), my father and brother among them, both of which are extremely honest Christians (and ministers in otherwise "conservative" denominations to boot).

I see it like this: the intellectually honest person (Xian or otherwise) would recognize that the scientific evidence clearly indicates that the Genesis creation account clearly doesn't match what we understand about the world. Therefore, the honest person would recognize that the Genesis account can't honestly be accepted as literal history.

BTW, do you believe in a literal 6-day interpretation of Genesis, and believe in a "young earth"?

My interpretation of Genesis comes not from trying to explain away certain parts but of reading it as a whole and looking at what the author found to be most important. I do not believe Genesis is any attempt to explain creation. Saying God spoke this and that into existence is no explanation other then that it gives credit to God for creating the universe. I think it's obvious reading the beginning of Genesis that the primary purpose of the creation account was to glorify God. It starts, "In the beginning God." Another main purpose, it seems, is to describe man's place in God's creation. I generally don't buy into the "metaphor excuse" as I think people use it as an easy answer.

That's interesting, because you just gave a mythical/metaphorical intent to Genesis ("the primary purpose of the creation account was to glorify God").

However, when the author speaks of days before there was a sun, it seems obvious that the detailing of how God created the universe is more of a story for our benefit, but a story rooted in truth, not just a made up myth. So I don't believe certain parts are to be taken super-literally,

How then? Metaphorically? You're arguing that the Genesis account is a myth BTW; you just don't seem to realize it.

but I believe it is a general account given for our benefit. I certainly do not believe the Bible starts out with a nice story that has no truth to it.

I'm really confused. You seem to be arguing against a strictly literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, and instead for some sort of symbolic meaning meant to portray the glory of God in some way. How is that different from just saying its intent was not to be taken literally, but mythically? (And, FYI, myths can include literal and mythical truths, though when a literal historical account is embellished with mythical content it's generally considered a legend and not simply a "myth").

Why believe that Abraham existed but not believe that Adam and Eve existed?

Side note: Abraham is himself mythical, or perhaps "legendary" (a mythical account of a real person or event).

In any event, many Xians I've talked to believe the Genesis account is largely mythical as to its description of the creation process (i.e. they accept evolution) and the existence of two directly-created human ancestors named Adam and Eve, but believe it contains a metaphorical "truth" about how God introduced "spirit" into humanity and humankind at some point after that rebelled against God and thus introduced Sin into the world. Most of these, however, would accept Abraham as an historical character. Others believe the Genesis account is largely mythical, but God at some time in the past specially created A&E and then all hell broke loose. In other words, there's a lot of alternative explanations that allow you to escape being forced to accept a literal translation that totally contradicts the evidence.

Any Christian who believes that is fooling themselves unnecessarily in my opinion.

Well, you got one thing right. That's your opinion. I happen to think the opposite - that any Christian that thinks the Genesis account must be interpreted literally is fooling themselves.

Edited by Toto to bold quotes from Mike(ATL)

rlogan · 11-19-2003, 10:36 PM

Mike - I'm going to emphasize something JD wrote about.

Many of us keep saying "the" genesis "account". There are clearly two different accounts of creation in Genesis.

Two opposing things cannot both be true at the same time.

I'm not sure why you are asking anyone to prove that it is not the work of God. Nobody can prove that to you.

But it sure as heck wasn't written by Moses, the two stories are not literally true, and similarities between these accounts and more ancient pagan beliefs can be shown.

Mageth has pointed out Mike - you just made the metaphor argument yourself.

It is the answer that I hope you give to PTET's question. Otherwise, you have the capacity to believe in mutually exclusive propositions.

11-19-2003, 10:17 AM	#1
Mike(ATL) Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Atlanta Posts: 98	Defending the Genesis creation account I promised I'd do this a while back and I've been putting it off because I usually don't have the time it deserves. So forgive me if it takes me a while to reply to your criticisms. Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up. After all if God does not know His creation how can we believe anything else He says. I'd like to give you the opportunity now to demonstrate to myself and anyone else reading this why Genesis is myth and not the word of God. Keep in mind that Genesis was written by a person in ancient times that had no concept of the universe to a people that had no concept of the universe. However, the words were inspired by God so there should be no facts given that show God has no concept of His own creation. For example, the earth is not sitting on the back of a turtle. So with that in mind, convince me that I should not believe Genesis is the word of God. I'll do my best to leave no criticism unanswered, any help from my believing brothers and sisters would be much appreciated. Also for my sake, if you see that someone else has already brought up your point, please don't bring it up again unless you have something new to add. ** Let me also warn you before you post that I intend to save this thread when it's done and point to it any time in the future when someone tells me I can't believe in the God of the Bible because of Genesis. Ideally I'd like you to cross this off your list of reasons not to believe the Bible but realistically I doubt that will happen just because we are all a stubborn people by nature. Probably the best I can hope for is to reassure any believers that Genesis is not a book that needs to be ignored for your faith to be valid.

11-19-2003, 10:39 AM	#4
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Re: Defending the Genesis creation account Originally posted by Mike(ATL) Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up. I've never seen anyone here make that argument. Got any links? I'd like to give you the opportunity now to demonstrate to myself and anyone else reading this why Genesis is myth and not the word of God. Well, first, the ball is really in your court to demonstrate why the Genesis account should be taken literally. That said, we know it's myth because it simply does not match the evidence for the origin of the universe, the earth, and life. In other words, Genesis does not explain reality. Keep in mind that Genesis was written by a person in ancient times that had no concept of the universe to a people that had no concept of the universe. You can say that and yet you're disputing that it's mythical? However, the words were inspired by God Were they? You mean you believe the words were inspired by God. so there should be no facts given that show God has no concept of His own creation. For example, the earth is not sitting on the back of a turtle. Nor was woman created from the rib of a man. Nor do serpents talk. So with that in mind, convince me that I should not believe Genesis is the word of God. Personally, you can believe what you wish. Let me also warn you before you post that I intend to save this thread when it's done and point to it any time in the future when someone tells me I can't believe in the God of the Bible because of Genesis. Most if not all atheists I know argue just the opposite - that recognizing the Genesis account as myth doesn't preclude you from believing in God. Ideally I'd like you to cross this off your list of reasons not to believe the Bible but realistically I doubt that will happen just because we are all a stubborn people by nature. It's not on my "list" in the way you portray it in the first place. Probably the best I can hope for is to reassure any believers that Genesis is not a book that needs to be ignored for your faith to be valid.** And I, an atheist, will assure any believers that Genesis is not a book that needs to be interpreted literally for your faith to be "valid". I know many Christians who do just that (recognize Genesis as mythical).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-19-2003, 10:22 AM	#2
Stew Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: North of the North Pole Posts: 281	I think you might be well served by defining your take on the Bible's genesis account. Do you take it, as a whole, literally or metaphorically or take some parts literally and others metaphorically. .

11-19-2003, 10:35 AM	#3
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""""""""Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up. """""""" Are you sure people argue this? Do these not-so-intelligent posters know that "Genesis" was written centuries before books like say the "Gospel of Mark." How does judgment on one influence the other? You can't ignore the individuality of the various biblical books. Vinnie

11-19-2003, 11:26 AM	#5
PTET Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: UK Posts: 41	Hi Mike Can you please explain to my why Genesis 1 says that fruit trees appeared on earth (11-13) two creation days before animal life first appread? (20). According to the TalkOrigins page Evolutionary and Geological Timelines , the first plants with roots (ferns) didn't appear until around 350 million years ago - 120 million years after millipedes appeared as the first land animals. That seems to establish conclusively that Genesis and science cannot be reconciled. Now, I'm sure you accept that every other creation account is mythological - that is to say, a historical fiction told primarily to validate religious beliefs. What reason is there to accept Genesis as anything other than another creation myth? I look forward to reading your reply. Regards PTET

11-19-2003, 12:22 PM	#9
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Originally posted by Mike(ATL) If you insist, I've heard this from a few different people since I've started posting here. Here is the first one I've found from one of my old threads. I honestly don't see how that quote from Biff supports your assertion that "Some of you have argued to me that because Genesis reads like a myth it shows that all of the Bible was made up." Biff didn't say that he believes "all of the Bible was made up." Maybe he believes that, maybe he doesn't. That quote doesn't show 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, One can believe that and still recognize the Genesis account as mythical. Many Christians do. that He created man from the dust of the ground, that Satan inhabited a serpent, etc. Well, the Genesis account doesn't indicate that the serpent was Satan in the first place. That's a later interpretation. 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. Nice "No True Scotsman" argument there. I happen to know many honest Christians that don't believe accepting a literal interpretation of Genesis precludes one from believing in the "God of the OT" and thus "Jesus of the NT" (btw, I thought they were supposed to be one and the same?), my father and brother among them, both of which are extremely honest Christians (and ministers in otherwise "conservative" denominations to boot). I see it like this: the intellectually honest person (Xian or otherwise) would recognize that the scientific evidence clearly indicates that the Genesis creation account clearly doesn't match what we understand about the world. Therefore, the honest person would recognize that the Genesis account can't honestly be accepted as literal history. BTW, do you believe in a literal 6-day interpretation of Genesis, and believe in a "young earth"? My interpretation of Genesis comes not from trying to explain away certain parts but of reading it as a whole and looking at what the author found to be most important. I do not believe Genesis is any attempt to explain creation. Saying God spoke this and that into existence is no explanation other then that it gives credit to God for creating the universe. I think it's obvious reading the beginning of Genesis that the primary purpose of the creation account was to glorify God. It starts, "In the beginning God." Another main purpose, it seems, is to describe man's place in God's creation. I generally don't buy into the "metaphor excuse" as I think people use it as an easy answer. That's interesting, because you just gave a mythical/metaphorical intent to Genesis ("the primary purpose of the creation account was to glorify God"). However, when the author speaks of days before there was a sun, it seems obvious that the detailing of how God created the universe is more of a story for our benefit, but a story rooted in truth, not just a made up myth. So I don't believe certain parts are to be taken super-literally, How then? Metaphorically? You're arguing that the Genesis account is a myth BTW; you just don't seem to realize it. but I believe it is a general account given for our benefit. I certainly do not believe the Bible starts out with a nice story that has no truth to it. I'm really confused. You seem to be arguing against a strictly literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account, and instead for some sort of symbolic meaning meant to portray the glory of God in some way. How is that different from just saying its intent was not to be taken literally, but mythically? (And, FYI, myths can include literal and mythical truths, though when a literal historical account is embellished with mythical content it's generally considered a legend and not simply a "myth"). Why believe that Abraham existed but not believe that Adam and Eve existed? Side note: Abraham is himself mythical, or perhaps "legendary" (a mythical account of a real person or event). In any event, many Xians I've talked to believe the Genesis account is largely mythical as to its description of the creation process (i.e. they accept evolution) and the existence of two directly-created human ancestors named Adam and Eve, but believe it contains a metaphorical "truth" about how God introduced "spirit" into humanity and humankind at some point after that rebelled against God and thus introduced Sin into the world. Most of these, however, would accept Abraham as an historical character. Others believe the Genesis account is largely mythical, but God at some time in the past specially created A&E and then all hell broke loose. In other words, there's a lot of alternative explanations that allow you to escape being forced to accept a literal translation that totally contradicts the evidence. Any Christian who believes that is fooling themselves unnecessarily in my opinion. Well, you got one thing right. That's your opinion. I happen to think the opposite - that any Christian that thinks the Genesis account must be interpreted literally is fooling themselves. Edited by Toto to bold quotes from Mike(ATL)

11-19-2003, 10:36 PM	#10
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Mike - I'm going to emphasize something JD wrote about. Many of us keep saying "the" genesis "account". There are clearly two different accounts of creation in Genesis. Two opposing things cannot both be true at the same time. I'm not sure why you are asking anyone to prove that it is not the work of God. Nobody can prove that to you. But it sure as heck wasn't written by Moses, the two stories are not literally true, and similarities between these accounts and more ancient pagan beliefs can be shown. Mageth has pointed out Mike - you just made the metaphor argument yourself. It is the answer that I hope you give to PTET's question. Otherwise, you have the capacity to believe in mutually exclusive propositions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.