Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)

[Dywyddyr]

On the contrary.
I am reading the bible from a literal point of view.

Really?
Then how do you account for the fact that man is LITERALLY stated to have been formed, created and made?
Or maybe now you want to dispute the meaning of "literal".

I am specifically looking at the words, using their meanings to get a better understanding.

And, as you have already been shown, the words are somewhat fluid in their meaning.

All the translations I've read use ''formed'' not create.

ALL the translations?
So you've never read the the KJV?
The one that happens to to be the standard version for English speakers?

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

But you are going out of your way to read in distinctions that aren't apparent in the text and aren't apparent in ordinary usage - e.g. "make" vs. "create". Also, you're apparently introducing extraneous information that isn't in the bible - e.g. the claim that the Sun existed before God "revealed" it. A literal reading of Genesis has nothing to support such suppositions. Any sensible person would read it that God created the Sun.

I'm not saying God didn't create the sun. I believe He created it in the begining, like the heavens and the earth. I just don't think He created it on
the fourth day,

How could the plants have come about without the sunlight?
How is it that you are prepared to accept that the plants came before the sun, while knowing that not plausible?

I notice that you're still dodging the question of what the lights are that God created on day 4. Why?

I'm not dodging the question.


''God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.''

as-ah

1) to do, work, make, produce

a) to do

b) to work

c) to deal (with)

d) to act, act with effect, effect....

I don't think He ''created'' them then.
He commanded them. ''Let there be a light in the....''
How do you come to the conclusion that the quote is an act of creation, rather than a command/request?

What was God doing when he said "Let there be light", then? And where's the literal biblical evidence that supports your reading?

He was commanding/requesting.
Where is the literal evidence that supports your reading?

Any sensible person would say that God is described here as creating light ex nihilo. Would they not?

Some may, some won't.
But why do you describe it as such?

Who authored Genesis? And was it not inspired by God, or directly communicated by him? Why would God allow errors and ambiguities to creep into a text that he wants us to take literally?

By taking it literally we can actually see the ambiguities, whereas if we accept every Tom, Dick, and Harrys interpretation, we will never be able understand it as it should be.

Spirituality is not dependant on knowledge of science. There are essential truths in all scriptures which are of a spiritual nature, and that is what is important.

Why all the room for interpretation in God's perfect Word?

Because we aren't perfect.


jan.

 

[Michael]

Or because the Bible is just a collection of stories never meant to be taken literal.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

There are essential truths in all scriptures which are of a spiritual nature, and that is what is important.

This has yet to be demonstrated.

 

[James R]

Jan:

[quite]I'm not saying God didn't create the sun. I believe He created it in the begining, like the heavens and the earth. I just don't think He created it on the fourth day[/quote]

Then what's all that stuff about in the description of the 4th day? What are those two lights in the sky that are mentioned? You still haven't said.

How could the plants have come about without the sunlight?
How is it that you are prepared to accept that the plants came before the sun, while knowing that not plausible?

I'm not prepared to accept it. Which is why I'm not prepared to accept Genesis as a literal account. See?

I notice that you're still dodging the question of what the lights are that God created on day 4. Why?

I'm not dodging the question.

''God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.''

You just dodged it again.

What are the two great lights that God made, Jan? And why is their creation mentioned under the 4th day?

[quite]I don't think He ''created'' them then.[/quote]

That's a completely tortured and non-literal reading of Genesis. You're going against your own advice to read Genesis literally.

He commanded them. ''Let there be a light in the....''
How do you come to the conclusion that the quote is an act of creation, rather than a command/request?

Because the first chapter of Genesis is obviously a creation story. It talks constantly about God creating this and that.

What was God doing when he said "Let there be light", then? And where's the literal biblical evidence that supports your reading?

He was commanding/requesting.

Ok. Who was he commanding? Or to whom was he making his request?

Where is the literal evidence that supports your reading?

I'm just going by a common-sense literal reading of Genesis - taking your advice.

Any sensible person would say that God is described here as creating light ex nihilo. Would they not?

Some may, some won't.
But why do you describe it as such?

You're the only one I have ever heard who has said anything different.

Why do I describe it as such? Because that's the accepted interpretation among both amateurs and experts on the matter.

By taking it literally we can actually see the ambiguities, whereas if we accept every Tom, Dick, and Harrys interpretation, we will never be able understand it as it should be.

Aren't you just one more Tom, Dick or Harry?

Spirituality is not dependant on knowledge of science. There are essential truths in all scriptures which are of a spiritual nature, and that is what is important.

Maybe so; maybe not. I don't see how science is at all relevant to a literal reading of Genesis.

Wouldn't it be easier for you to just accept that God made the plants before the Sun, even though that is in conflict with scientific understanding? It's not as if God couldn't keep the plants alive by his magic for a few days until the Sun was created.

Or do you have a desparate need for Genesis to be in accordance with science? Because clearly it is not.

 

[wynn]

Isn't one of our tools the ability to recognize metaphor and allegory?

But that normally requires that we can distinguish between the metaphorical and the non-metaphorical, between the allegorical and the non-allegorical.

Saying "This is metaphorical, that is non-metaphorical" implies a specific ontology and a specific epistemology that should not be taken for granted and should not automatically be presumed a given for what the original intent of the text was.

The specific ontology and specific epistemology that we work with in trying to distinguish what in the Bible (or some other text) is metaphorical or not, may have little or nothing to do with the ontology and epistemology as intended by the author of the Bible.

We cannot just look at something and claim "This is metaphorical, that is not metaphorical" - and presume we are making a sound claim about the phenomenon in question.

 

[kx000]

Genesis is the story of Atlantis, the first civillization, which is destroyed by God.

 

[wynn]

Genesis is the story of Atlantis, the first civillization, which is destroyed by God.

Awww, perhaps Knowledge91 has a point here:

How do we know about which world, which earth the story in Genesis is about?

We just, in line with tradition, take for granted that it is about planet Earth.
What if it isn't?

 

[LIGHTBEING]

How could the plants have come about without the sunlight?
How is it that you are prepared to accept that the plants came before the sun, while knowing that not plausible?

Unfortunately the author of Genesis did not realize how implausible it was. This fact is very telling indeed. But then again, how can we expect early humans to understand the concepts of photosynthesis?

 

[LIGHTBEING]

Awww, perhaps Knowledge91 has a point here:

How do we know about which world, which earth the story in Genesis is about?

We just, in line with tradition, take for granted that it is about planet Earth.
What if it isn't?

Great, then it has nothing to do with us then

 

[Jan Ardena]

LIGHTBEING,

Unfortunately the author of Genesis did not realize how implausible it was.

I think the author did realize, which is why he chose his words carefully.

This fact is very telling indeed. But then again, how can we expect early humans to understand the concepts of photosynthesis?

You mean, how can we expect early humans to understand the concept that
life is dependant on the sun, as the word ''photosynthesis'' is a modern one?

Quite easily, actually.


jan.

 

[kx000]

Awww, perhaps Knowledge91 has a point here:

How do we know about which world, which earth the story in Genesis is about?

We just, in line with tradition, take for granted that it is about planet Earth.
What if it isn't?

I will speak for God. If I misspeak let him strike me down. For man I stand, if I stumble he will tear me apart. Genesis is the story of God first try. Adam, born a man of lower evolved humans with no speech and unused free will, Eve in the same day to the same tribe of humans. They gave rose to stature and mind. They grew from adolescence to adulthood quickly, and fell in love. They were lead by God to the Garden of Eden. They were to be the first. They were to populate it and til the ground. They gave their seed, and while that others who were like them were brought to Eden through God. All 3 of Adams sons found bride and gave seed.

It is through Seth the Holy bloodline was concieved. Some say he was the first comming of Christ, this I do not believe. The Holy bloodline went all they way down to Noah, who was preserved the keep the bloodline in tact when Atlantis was destroyed. Since we are in the 7th day, and always have been since we have given free will, and Adam was "created" on the 6th then that means genesis occured sometime right before the ice age by my count. On the 7th day God rested. Why do you think Jesus doesn't just pop down here and cure your sick grand mother?

It is about Earth, but one with a much prettier face, you know what I mean? I will be the voice of God here, if I didn't say it then it should be taken with salt. If I say it is not true then it is not. If I say hold your tounge it is to save your salvation. If we want to get anywhere in these discussions there needs to be one idea of God, and I can't speak for everyone, but God came to me and gives me his word. I am the church God is my pastor. If it is not God whom I speak then I say Jesus strike me down, I am a shell of a man who is dellusional, I do no good in a overpopulated world.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I will speak for God. If I misspeak let him strike me down. Blah blah Blah.

Hey that's good!
I'm nearly convinced.

On the other hand...

I speak directly for God. (May he strike me down if I'm wrong):

You're talking utter nonsense.


(Am I still here? Yep. so far....)

 

[LIGHTBEING]

*Zeus obliterates Knowledge with a lightning bolt*

 

[LIGHTBEING]

LIGHTBEING,





I think the author did realize, which is why he chose his words carefully.

I still don't see the distinction. This looks to be wishful thinking on your part. You are attempting to make sense out of alleged events that just don't add up.

You mean, how can we expect early humans to understand the concept that
life is dependant on the sun, as the word ''photosynthesis'' is a modern one?

Quite easily, actually.

I can see how this would be required to assume if you reject the gradual process of evolution.

 

[Arioch]

@Jan --

How could the plants have come about without the sunlight?
How is it that you are prepared to accept that the plants came before the sun, while knowing that not plausible?

How could the entire universe be created in six days?

 

[Jan Ardena]

1 I still don't see the distinction. This looks to be wishful thinking on your part. You are attempting to make sense out of alleged events that just don't add up.





2 I can see how this would be required to assume if you reject the gradual process of evolution.

1 What?
You don't see the difference between the word ''create'' and ''make'' in the Hebrew lexicon examples I gave?
Why not?


2 Actually it's not really an assumption when you consider the information about the cosmos which is contained withing Purana's which were written hundreds if not thousands of years before modern scientific development.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

@Jan --



How could the entire universe be created in six days?

What scripture is this from?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

1 What?
You don't see the difference between the word ''create'' and ''make'' in the Hebrew lexicon examples I gave?
Why not?

Because there is no difference. As shown a number of times.
Please try to be honest, for once.

2 Actually it's not really an assumption when you consider the information about the cosmos which is contained withing Purana's which were written hundreds if not thousands of years before modern scientific development.

Right. And how much of it is scientifically valid?

 

[wynn]

Unfortunately the author of Genesis did not realize how implausible it was. This fact is very telling indeed. But then again, how can we expect early humans to understand the concepts of photosynthesis?

I think it is reasonable to assume that humans, from early on, understood that the sun is of vital importance for the growing of plants.

I am more inclined to think that there exists a reasonable explanation for why the plants are said to come before the Sun, an explanation that has nothing to do with the ancient people supposedly lacking knowledge of the importance of sunlight.

Perhaps there was a glitch in the composition of the text or in translation; perhaps back then they had a vastly different concept of how to talk about things coming into existence than we do today.


I don't see possible biblical inconsistencies to be a problem, unless some people are using the Bible somehow as a justification to threaten or abuse others. If this is the case, then trying to make sense of the Bible or trying to dismiss it is the wrong thing to do to avert the threat or abuse.
And by threats and abuse I mean here in the physical sense, and/or in the psychological sense.

When people are being threatened or abused, they often try to convince the perpetrator that they are human, that they are real and worthy, that they can reason rationally - and that thus they should not be threatened or abused.
And of course this strategy sometimes works, but often it doesn't.

We do not negotiate with terrorists!

If anything, one can pretend to negotiate, but it remains that the other person was threatening you, was abusing you.
There is no getting along with abusers. There can be no peaceful coexistence with abusers.