Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)

[Jan Ardena]

Aioch,

It was an oral history, each family at the time had a slightly different one and it changed down the generations.

Exodus 17:14 (NKJV)
14 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this for a memorial in the book and recount it in the hearing of Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.”


Exodus 24:4 (NKJV)
4 And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. And he rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars according to the twelve tribes of Israel.



Exodus 34:27 (NKJV)
27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”

The author probably took his family's oral history and wrote it down, there's no reason for him(and we can be fairly safe in assuming that it was a he) to think that it would be important at all.

Moses was a ''he''.

What evidence do you have that it wasn't Moses who WROTE the the books, and whoever did write them, merely wrote down spoken aural traditions?

Basically you have absolutely no justification for assuming that the author, or more likely authors, would know of the future "importance" of Genesis. So this is just one more unfounded assumption.

Nonsense.

Also, you never answered my question. Even granting your imaginary make/create dichotomy, and even granting that it's just talking about making the Earth(despite the fact that Genesis explicitly states that he created the stars), you still haven't said how the whole "six day" thing jives with science.

Why is the distinction between make and create from the Hebrew perspective
imaginary?

Even if you interpret the word to mean "a thousand years" which is the longest interpretation of the word(and thus, most favorable to you, though that definition is ruled out by context) the author/s use, that's still only six thousand years and we know, for a fact, that it took the Earth longer than six thousand years to form and it took roughly half a billion years for life to first form on the planet. Thus, a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong.

Let's deal with the ''imaginary'' claim first.

jan.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

Moses was a ''he''.

Good point, let me think about that for a bit...oh wait nevermind, it's absolute bullshit.

We have literally no evidence that Moses even existed, literally the only references to Moses we have are from the bible in stories that we know for a fact didn't happen. The whole book of Exodus is fiction, we know this because of the physical evidence we've found and the lack of physical evidence supporting the Exodus story, of course, that's an entirely different topic and there are already threads devoted to it. Quoting exodus doesn't help your case, we're still dealing with at least one unknown author likely multiple.

You can't use the bible to prove the bible, that would be like using H.P. Lovecraft to prove that his stories were true. Validation of an argument doesn't work that way, I would have expected you to know that. Tsk, tsk.

What evidence do you have that it wasn't Moses who WROTE the the books, and whoever did write them, merely wrote down spoken aural traditions?

Well here's one link showing that the majority of biblical scholars don't believe that Moses authored the first five books. Beyond that we merely need to read the text itself. When speaking about Moses' death it flits between first and third person, with the first person account supposedly taking place up to a century after the death of the man in question. In addition, the bible tells us that, also in a passage supposedly written by Moses, that nobody knows where the tomb of Moses is. Now, either Moses is a super time traveler or the bible is full of shit, take your pick.

Of course, this is all common sense to anyone who's actually read the bible, makes me wonder why you persist in debating the bible when you haven't read it.

Nonsense.

Exactly. You use nonsense(the bible) to support your claim. Glad to know that we see eye to eye on this.

Why is the distinction between make and create from the Hebrew perspective
imaginary?

This point has already been settled, I refer you to the link that James R provided.

Let's deal with the ''imaginary'' claim first.

No, let's not because it's already been dealt with, several times. Answer the question and quit evading, or are you doing so because you know that you can't answer the question without contradicting your own premise that the bible must be taken literally?

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

P.S.: Here's another link for you in case the first one wasn't good enough for you.

 

[AlexG]

So if I've been following this correctly, you must take the words of the bible literally, except when Jan disagrees with what they say, in which case, one defaults to Jan's interpretation.

:shrug:

 

[Dywyddyr]

You've got it!

 

[wellwisher]

Taking the words of the bible literally, makes it easier to remember and pass down genesis via verbal traditions. These stories are easy to remember. But the way you interpret these stories is via symbolism.

As an analogy, if you look at fables, these at first glance, appear to be children's stories, which children like to hear. They are easy to remember, even for children. But many of these also have a moral lesson. The moral lesson is woven into the story, so even if the child does not get see the moral lesson, they will still know the story. The invisible lesson gets passed to the future via the ease at which the story can be remembered. Later the young adult might see this hidden meaning or will have someone tell them.

Genesis is symbolic puzzle that is woven within the story, with the story easy to remember so it can be passed forward easily without changes. This keeps the mystery in place, until those who understand human symbolism can see the interwoven meaning.

Children and adults who are not very bright, or have been biased, will only see a fable as a child's story, with the moral lesson over they heads. This is true of atheism and the bible, pearls and swine. The faithful need to be patient since atheists can't even figure out the moral lessons in fables unless told. The symbolism in genesis is even less obvious to the untrained eye.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is true of atheism and the bible, pearls and swine.

Wrong again.
That chip on your shoulder is getting bigger all the time.
What is it?
Jealousy?
Hate?
Or just ignorance?

 

[420Joey]

Dyw has been proven not to be accurate in his measurements

 

[Arioch]

@wellwisher --

Oh we can figure out the morals to the stories no problem, and if that's all the bible was held to be then there wouldn't be much of a problem. But no, we're told that the bible has a monopoly on the truth, that when science and the bible conflict the bible wins, despite all of it's internal contradictions and outright fabrications.

But we can go along with your idea. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us as to what the "moral" of the Genesis creation myth is, and if you try that "it's an analogy for human development" bullshit again then be prepared to be ridiculed.

 

[billvon]

billvon . . (the two creation stories) . . makes no sense unless you're purposefully trying to make the Bible out to be nonsense.

Not at all! When you look at it from the perspective of who wrote the Bible it makes perfect sense. The first story, Genesis 1, was written by the P-source (one of the sources of the Torah) and can be distinguished by both the different order of events and the use of a different name for God (Elohim.) The second story, contained in Genesis 2, was written by the Yahwist (or J-source) and refers to God by the name Yahweh. They are different stories, written by different men, later unified by an editor into what we now consider Genesis.

Yet another example of how studying the etymology of the Bible leads to better understanding of it.

Prior to the formation of Adam and Eve, God created ''mankind''.

Hmm. Are you claiming that, Biblically speaking, Adam and Eve were not the first people? Interesting claim, but one I think most Biblical scholars would disagree with.

The question of the authors state of mind is not actually known, so why do you keep bringing it up.

Because you asked.

I'm assuming he knew the importance it would have, because documents of such importance and less, are more than likely treated as important.

But as you have admitted he may not have known it would be treated as important. There's no nefarious reason behind such inaccuracies; Hanlon's Razor applies here.

Why would you think he wouldn't attatch importance to it?
And if he was casually interchangeing ''bara'' and ''asah'', why did he
use both of them to describe God's work in the verse that I gave you.

For the same reason that Genesis refers to God with two different words. Doesn't mean that there are really two Gods.

I don't get what you're driving at.
Can you clarify. Thanks.?

Sure. You claimed that the Bible was not literally accurate because some parts were written from God's perspective and some were written from a mortal man's perspective. In general, I agree*; the Bible is indeed not literally accurate, but rather a compendium of stories assembled by a variety of editors and translators, written from different perspectives.

* = Although I would suggest that in the end all perspectives in the Bible come from mortal men. No serious theologian proposes that God himself wrote any part of the Bible; at best it was written by mortal men inspired by God, and at worst it was written by men trying to make a lot of pagan stories fit a framework to support a new church.

 

[billvon]

Genesis is symbolic puzzle that is woven within the story, with the story easy to remember so it can be passed forward easily without changes.

Agreed. Far too many people treat it as something that is literally correct. It is not a history book; it is the oral and written legacy of the morality of a people stretching back over 4000 years. Taking it literally is a big mistake.

 

[Arioch]

@bill --

You got that right. Hell, all you need to do to show that a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong is point at an animal, doesn't matter which one, and say "the theory of evolution". Bam, you've just won.

 

[wynn]

Wrong again.
That chip on your shoulder is getting bigger all the time.
What is it?
Jealousy?
Hate?
Or just ignorance?

I seriously doubt he will reply.

 

[Robittybob1]

"Now Solve Genesis!" Let's do it right this time.

 

[Aqueous Id]

What evidence do you have that it wasn't Moses who WROTE the the books, and whoever did write them, merely wrote down spoken aural traditions?

Evidence:

The existence of Moses as well as the veracity of the Exodus story is disputed amongst archaeologists and Egyptologists, with experts in the field of biblical criticism citing logical inconsistencies, new archaeological evidence, historical evidence, and related origin myths in Canaanite culture.[3][4][5] Other historians maintain that the biographical details, and Egyptian background, attributed to Moses imply the existence of a historical political and religious leader who was involved in the consolidation of the Hebrew tribes in Canaan towards the end of the Bronze Age.
​

see Moses

There's a lot of scholarly refutation of Moses as author. Here is how I would quickly disprove it, simply as a matter of common sense:

(1) He was not present at the Creation, as no one had been created yet
(2) He was not present at the creation of Adam, as he had not yet been born
(3) He was not on the ark, nor present beforehand to record the preceding facts
(4) etc.

In fact, no person witnessed these events. It's just a legend.

If you try to pick a person as the author of something, be sure to check whether he lived in the time of the story. For example, Daniel claims to be in the time of Nebuchadnezzar (c. 605-562 B.C.) and Belshazzar (reigned 553).
compare with:

Norman W. Porteous was one of the first to postulate that an anonymous writer wrote the book during the persecution under Antiochus. According to this theory, the anonymous author attributed these events to Daniel, as prophecies that were witnessed by this writer in the 2nd century BCE.[15][16]
​

see Book of Daniel

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

You know what other interpretation makes the book of Genesis make sense? The interpretation that it's all a myth and never really happened, in fact the entire bible makes sense with that interpretation. Since that seems to be your main criteria for whether or not to accept an interpretation as valid(leaving out the fact that things which make sense turn out to be wrong on a daily basis), you must now logically accept this interpretation or reveal yourself to be nothing more than a dishonest troll.

 

[Jan Ardena]

"Now Solve Genesis!" Let's do it right this time.

My issue is not about ''solving'' genesis, it is about reading it literally.
But I am interested in your ''let's do it right this time'' claim.

So to start off: in order to solve genesis does one have to read the text
literally?


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Jan --

You know what other interpretation makes the book of Genesis make sense? The interpretation that it's all a myth and never really happened, in fact the entire bible makes sense with that interpretation. Since that seems to be your main criteria for whether or not to accept an interpretation as valid(leaving out the fact that things which make sense turn out to be wrong on a daily basis), you must now logically accept this interpretation or reveal yourself to be nothing more than a dishonest troll.

Your intensity makes you shift goalposts all over the place, making a
discussion seem impossible with you. If you want to contend that genesis
is NOT true, fine, go ahead. But that's not my claim.


jan.

 

[wellwisher]

The symbols of genesis can be interpreted symbolically. As an easy one to see, in the story of Cain and Abel, Cain was the tiller of the soil and Abel was a herder of animals. Cain kills Abel. Abel symbolizes the migratory herders that was around before civilization. Cain symbolized farming which would be needed for civilization. When Cain kills Abel farming supersedes the old way, fixing the group so civilization can take root.

Did you ever hear the song lyrics, video killed the radio star. There was no murder involved. The symbolism in the lyrics is all about a new invention making something else obsolete, even though both still exist in culture.

The tale of Cain killing Abel is easy to remember and sticks with you. The analysis I presented is a decompressed version of the symbolism. This is harder to remember over longs periods of time, and would be subject to change even over a short period of time. To retain clarity over millennia, the placeholder of the original story is what is retained in the bible, not the decompression.


In terms of the modern world, a contemporary symbolic decompression of the entire genesis story would involve the using the symbolism to discuss the evolution of human consciousness at the transition into civilization and shortly thereafter.

Video kills the radio star is about a change in attitude and sensory input due to changing technology. The way children behave to music is different.

With the change into farming, there were also new problems. Cain is sent away. Farming is a lot of work with no guarantee of success due to drought, locust, mold, genetic problems, animals, etc. What was evolutionary was also a prison sentence in light of the ease by which the migratory herder once roamed the plains (Abel was happy and looked on with favor by God (successful), while Cain is grouchy and irritable and jealous of his ease.

You put it together, migratory herding would not be as conducive to civilization as farming, since humans would not stay put. But the herders were very successful doing this; Abel is looked upon with love by God (successful). Cain is jealous and grouchy. He was a farmer, which is hard. It was also new technology with a sharp learning curve. But farming is pivotal to civilization. Instinctively it has to take root or the future will not appear. The invention is embraced, but in the process it forever changes the old way. Cain is sent away to wander. This is the learning curve of the tough life of the farmer who is always under the gun due to natural threat and the unexpected.

God gives Cain a symbol for protection so he will not be killed. In spite of the trials and tribulation of the farming learning curve and all the failures, he keeps plugging away, never giving up.

Adam and Eve have a third son called Seth.

From Wikipedia; In the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus refers to Seth as virtuous and of excellent character, and reports that his descendants invented the wisdom of the heavenly bodies, and built the "pillars of the sons of Seth", two pillars inscribed with many scientific discoveries and inventions, notably in astronomy. /QUOTE]

Seth symbolized another layer ofd the human mind, which begins to ponder the universe, with Seth sort of the symbolic seed that would become science. Civilization needed the logistics in place, such as farming, first. Then another virtuous endeavor appears which would be called science.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wellwisher,

The symbols of genesis can be interpreted symbolically. As an easy one to see, in the story of Cain and Abel, Cain was the tiller of the soil and Abel was a herder of animals. Cain kills Abel. Abel symbolizes the migratory herders that was around before civilization. Cain symbolized farming which would be needed for civilization. When Cain kills Abel farming supersedes the old way, fixing the group so civilization can take root.

Why should we take genesis as ''symbolic''?

Did you ever hear the song lyrics, video killed the radio star. There was no murder involved. The symbolism in the lyrics is all about a new invention making something else obsolete, even though both still exist in culture.

It didn't say video ''murdered'' the radio star, and, video did ''kill'' the radio star.

In terms of the modern world, a contemporary symbolic decompression of the entire genesis story would involve the using the symbolism to discuss the evolution of human consciousness at the transition into civilization and shortly thereafter.

What is the ''evolution of human consciousness''?

Video kills the radio star is about a change in attitude and sensory input due to changing technology. The way children behave to music is different.

It is also a literal description of the evolution of how we access music.



jan.