PTET

Hi Mike(ATL)

You have already made it abundantly clear that you consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God (and therefore, by implication, that no evidence could possibly prove it to be incorrect) and that for you, the word myth has the pejorative meaning of "fiction" (and therefore, by implication, that the Bible as the inspired word of God could not possibly be "mythological").

Let's look at those assumptions. Firstly, they are both based on logical fallacies - and therefore are useless as arguments.

Claiming that the Bible is "inerrant" is begging the question. You do not assume that any other work is inerrant. The truth or otherwise of any other work must be judged against the actual evidence at hand. If you think the Bible is special, it is for *you* to prove that it is.

Claiming that the word "myth" means "made up fiction" is poisoning the well. You set up this debate in a way which leaves two possible answers - the one you start with (that Genesis is "true"), and one which is so ludicrous that no-one believes it (that Genesis is "made up fiction", like "Harry Potter" or "The Lord of the Rings").

When anyone else on this board uses the term "myth", we mean (something like) a fictionalised history, which evolved over time from primitive understandings and guesswork about the Universe, over hundreds of years. If you will not accept a reasonable or dictionary definition of the word "myth", then we might as well give up talking to you.

Now, here's a few facts for you to consider.

According to a 1997 Gallup Poll, 95% of scientists in the USA (a great many of them Christian) accept that the Earth is billions of years old and that mankind evolved from less advanced forms of life (whether or not God was involved in the process) - and that Genesis is therefore a "mythical" view of creation

The overwhelming majority of archaeologists agree that the Old Testament is not a reliable history of ancient Israel. (See here and here). As the YEC archaeologist Bryant Wood admits: "...in academia it's an established fact that this whole time period is legendary..."

A great many religious organisations accept that Genesis gives a mythological (in the proper sense of the word) account of creation - and not a scientific one, whether or not they also consider the Bible to be the "inspired word of God". These include the American Jewish Congress; the American Scientific Affiliation; the Center For Theology And The Natural Sciences; the Central Conference Of American Rabbis; the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (2002); the General Convention Of The Episcopal Church; the Lexington Alliance Of Religious Leaders; the Lutheran World Federation; the Roman Catholic Church; the Unitarian Universalist Association; the United Church Board For Homeland Ministries; the United Methodist Church; and the United Presbyterian Church In The U.S.A.

Now, I'm sure I could never convince you that Genesis is not "the word of God". I would hope that will accept, however, that it is entirely possible to understand that it is "mythical" (in the proper sense of the word) and still be a Christian.

PTET

Jack the Bodiless

If you want the specific verses on which this illustration was based, the SAB's Science and History section would be a good place to start. The Book of Enoch (now considered non-canonical, but endorsed by Jude, who IS canonical) goes into more detail, such as the slots in the Firmament dome that the Sun and Moon pass through.

Something else to consider:

Consider the evolutionary "Tree of Life": thousands of species arranged in the branching pattern of common descent, complete with a timeline of major events. How was that picture assembled? It didn't come from a "Holy Book". It comes from the fossil record. Millions upon millions of fossils which appear in precisely that sequence.

No creationist has EVER been able to explain that. The best they can do is "fossils were planted by Satan to deceive us". Why would God allow that to happen?

Asha'man

Mike, I'm very disappointed in this thread. I thought we came here to have an honest conversation. You seem to be walking through this thread with blinders on.

Our original exchange was fairly simple: I said that the Bible was not reliable, that it did not agree with reality as we know it. You disagreed.

Science is a description of reality as we know it, and a way to find out more in an unbiased process. It contains a huge mass of evidence and knowledge. The vast majority of that knowledge has been tested to an extent that disbelieving it is simply ridiculous. There is absolutely no scientific doubt about the approximate age of the universe (around 13.5 billion years), the approximate age of the solar system (around 4.5 billion years), or the order of appearance of various types of creatures in the fossil record. We have multiple lines of evidence for each of these things, and each line is able to independently confirm the accuracy of the other lines. To deny this is to deny reality, and to demonstrate complete ignorance of these fields of science.

But this is exactly what you seem to be doing, isn’t it? If there is a conflict between your book and reality, you side with your book. Well, that’s fine, but you can’t then claim that there isn’t a conflict at the same time, now can you? It’s very clear that there is a conflict, and that’s the root of the whole problem.

Hedshaker

Well there it is again. I've heard it so many times now it isn't even funny anymore. All you have to do is believe in god and the bible and the truth becomes obvious

Are you serious? Believe first and then investigate it's validity.

You seriously need to open your mind. All the evidence shows that Genesis is a myth.

That means there was no such thing as talking snakes, original sin, the fall, the flood, the ark, etc. etc..... the whole thing is based on myth.

Get over it already

Mageth

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
Quite right, I don't like that word as a descriptor of the holy word of God. I'm sure you can see how that is quite insulting to anyone who values scripture. Myths are made up stories, scripture is accounts of actual events.
...
That's a pretty picture but I don't see how Genesis tells us that is how the world definitely is. I can think of some of the scripture off the top of my head that, when taken completely literally, would lead to some of the features of that diagram. The problem of course is that some things are not meant to be taken literally. Maybe you could show me a passage that demonstrates this is how God is telling us the world is and therefore shows how ignorant He is?

Cognitive dissonance, anyone? If you consider scripture as "accounts of actual events", why do you then say "I can think of some of the scripture off the top of my head that, when taken completely literally, would lead to some of the features of that diagram. The problem of course is that some things are not meant to be taken literally"???

Mageth

Mike(ATL) said:

Concept of light and dark, night and day. If God can create the stars He can surely allow us to see them now no matter how old the earth is.

So you think God has somehow "deceived" us by making the universe look some 15 billion years old, and the earth some 4.5 billion (e.g. creating oil)? Note that there are many features of earth that indicate old age - from the ice caps that show at least 100,000 years of annual layers, to the geologic column and fossil record that show billions of years in their structures. So God made all these things that make the earth and the universe look far older than the age that He expects us to understand for the earth from the Bible? Why would God do that? Why didn't he simply make the earth and the universe look its "actual" age?

Maybe man could converse with the animals before sin. Count it as absurd if it makes you feel better.

No, I count it as absurd because it is absurd. Animals don't have the physiology to speak with humans. Physiologically, serpents can't talk, even if one granted them the mental capacity for language (which they, of course, do not have, nor do almost all other animals).

Hawkingfan

I only have a minute so I can only take on a couple of these right now.
Yes, it is light and darkness. Your second sentence is true, however, since light is the FIRST THING EVER created, then any other possible source you are alluding to came after. So you are back to square one. Feel free to try again. You are assuming that your last statement is true. How do you know this? Ancient cultures, especially those of Latin America, thought that the sun was a god that governed the light (two separate entities: sun and light). The bible does not show in any way that they thought differently, that light came from the sun. If they did, they would have said god created the sun (or other sourse) first. An omnipotent god would have seen to it that the sun came first.

Chapter 2 also says: "appeared on the earth". This would include the vegetation in Chapter 1. And it is idiotic and illogical to create trees and vegetation in Chapter 1, go through all the rest of creation including man, and THEN create shrubs (again? or after all this?). Ridiculous.

Doctor X

"A cry from the wilderness. . . ."

Perchance . . . more a "whine."

Yet the individual refuses to address the evidence given to him. For him to howl about tests of patience borders on hypocrisy.

As previously suggested, then resuggested, then resubmitted, with redundancy, the text to consult is:

Wait for it. . . .

Wait for it. . . .

Who Wrote the Bible?

This is the simplest introduction to the scholarship of multiple-authorship.

I had offered a challenge to Magus--and recently redirected him to it--to read this book. I merely wished him, who denied such things as multiple authorship, to address the evidence. I did not expect him to bow down and worship at the feet of Documentary Hypothesists, but I would expect him to say that doublet is not a doublet, or that different authors are really one author. In other words, I wished Magus to address the evidence rather than his personal beliefs.

I had extended this challenge to this individual after reading, yet again, another spurious claim that "Moses wrote it." Since I and other members of the Noble Readership had directed this individual to resources to demonstrate why, for example, the Creation Myth is two main stories stitched together, his continued "wonderment" whenever we have to repeat it calls his sincerity into question.

If it takes a "condescending tone" to attract attention, that remains the individual's error. On the contrary, I and others have kindly, respectfully, and now with the loss of patience he appeals to, refered him to evidence to answer his questions.

On the contrary, he has become akin to a broken record [An ancient device for recording voices and sounds popular before CDs and 8-track.--Ed.] who makes a claim--such as in support of the Flood Myth--then disappears in the face of the evidence--only to return a week or so later making the same claim.

As forewritten, no one can think I enjoy this. Frankly, if the individual proved yet another type that just spouts personal conviction without considering evidence or simply fell back on the tired argumentum ad hominem route, I would have ignored him.

On the contrary [Cue violins.--Ed.], it is with the selfless hope to guide a mind towards greater understanding and knowledge that I do now correspond in such tone "a trifle on the harsh side of strict." I do not expect, nor do I want, the individual to suddenly chuck his religion into the fireplace. I do expect him to confront evidence given to him.

[ZZzzzZZZZZzzZZZzzzz--Ed.]

It may seem unfair to recommend a small book to him. Indeed, I dislike the "read this 10,000 page polemic and you will agree with me, stupid" approach. However, one has to have some basics. You have to know something about genetics to understand heredity. You have to know something about physics to understand . . . well . . . physics.

--J.D.

Hawkingfan

You are contradicting yourself. Please stick to one explanation. Because you said that the vegetation in Chapter 2 is not the same as Chapter 1. Now for convenience, animals were created and brought to Adam right after (?) or on the same day (?) as when they were created.

It is pointless to reword the entire first Chapter in the second Chapter, while only adding details to it. Especially when it's so confusing to do so. An omnipotent god could have and should have known better. Adam could have easily named the beasts in Chapter 1. The two chapters should have been merged into one, consistant storyline. But no, you deny the obvious--these are two different accounts written by two different people (they even use different names for God throughout their respective accounts) that were borrowed from the same myth.

Chapter 1: "male and female, he created them."
Chapter 2: God first sees that Adam needs a companion, THEN creates Eve.

Then he would have no reason to create the "system that causes sunlight to cause plants to grow" if it was growing perfectly fine without it. It is a superfluous act to create such a thing.

And if what you said were true, then there would be no need to go into logical explanations like the following:

verse 2:5-- "...no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground." Then certainly (according to you) he could cause the plant of the field to spring up without the aid of rain or man. Yet, the writer somehow felt the need to try and be a scientist in THIS case. Why not the other? Hmmmm.

Adora

I'll repeat it again people.

The Sumerians Got There First.

Mike, if you spent the time and effort you waste debating these issues on utterly petty and shallow levels actually on researching the truth behind Judaeo-Christian cosmology (and therefore creation myths) it wouldn't take you that long to realise that, well, they just ripped off the Sumerians.

Seriously, don't answer this, just do us all a favour, go to Google, and type in "Sumerian Creation Myths". Please.

Of course, any questions about Sumerian cosmology, I'd be happy to discuss.