I think it is hard to be very positive of what it is said , we are not in the same frame of mind of the writer and how some word have been used .
I think we can use science to complement some of the writuing.
Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)
- Thread starter Arioch
- Start date
I think it is hard to be very positive of what it is said , we are not in the same frame of mind of the writer and how some word have been used .
I think we can use science to complement some of the writuing.
The way I interpret genesis is it tells about the formation of the modern human mind as it evolves beyond the prehuman mind. It describes the evolution of the new mind that would make civilization possible. The bias of traditions assumes physical but psychological symbolism makes more sense. But this does not satisfy the bias of atheism which gets better milage with physical. It gets to appear holier than thou. The mind theory steal that thunder so it tends to be condemned without trial.
As an analogy, say we were trying to invent AI in the lab. We describe the very first manifestation and how it slowly changes. Later there is a metamorphosis into an more advanced manifestation, etc. If we personify that secondary to make it easier to understand, then some may argue that "Fred", is only a pile of electronics. But in the final report we call even the first manifesting of Fred, Fred even though it was not originally called Fred.
The first Adam was similar to the prehuman transition man. He appears in day two. This Adam is alone in the garden and not yet the social animal meeded for civilization. He placed in a deep sleep and arises again. In the AI example, it is still Fred but in different stages of development.
Like Cain and Abel has Cain a farmer and Abel a herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel this implies farming superseds herding for civilization. Tens of thousands of years of following the animals dies with the invention of farming. The was first hand account from those who were there but told in a way that would last for thousands of years.
As an analogy, say we were trying to invent AI in the lab. We describe the very first manifestation and how it slowly changes. Later there is a metamorphosis into an more advanced manifestation, etc. If we personify that secondary to make it easier to understand, then some may argue that "Fred", is only a pile of electronics. But in the final report we call even the first manifesting of Fred, Fred even though it was not originally called Fred.
The first Adam was similar to the prehuman transition man. He appears in day two. This Adam is alone in the garden and not yet the social animal meeded for civilization. He placed in a deep sleep and arises again. In the AI example, it is still Fred but in different stages of development.
Like Cain and Abel has Cain a farmer and Abel a herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel this implies farming superseds herding for civilization. Tens of thousands of years of following the animals dies with the invention of farming. The was first hand account from those who were there but told in a way that would last for thousands of years.
You have already been informed that we switched from "pre-human" to human well before we formed civilisations. Stop peddling your crap.
What?
What?
And, as has been explained to you already: this is nonsense.
If the words are interchangable, then genesis doesn't make sense.
For example is it saying that God created the heavens and the earth in the begining, or did he make them. While that can loosely be reconsiled using the english language, it starts too become very confusing from a Hebrew perspective. It is for this reason that I think the words used are of importance.
There are instances in genesis where one word carries different meanings according to the context in which it is used, words like, ''formless'', and ''replenish''. If these words are translated with meanings that are not in context with the theme of the text, we get confusion.
I don't see the point of reading a text that makes no sense because words have been taken out of context, and simply accept that it makes no sense.
Why would someone write something so obviously important without taking the time to make sure it could be understood?
The thing is, we don't know whether or not the words are interchangable, and we have no reason to accept only, that the words ARE interchangable.
If they are not, then everytime those words appear means they are used for a specif reason. If they are interchangable, then we cannot be sure of anything in the Old Testament.
jan.
@Jan --
You know damn well which scripture I'm talking about, it's the only one we're talking about in this thread. Genesis says that god did all of this in days(and the Hebrew is quite specific) when we know that the sun and earth didn't form until some nine billion years after the universe began, and even then it took nearly four point five billion years more for humans to get here. Again, a blatant contradiction of the Genesis narrative.
So, why does the Genesis account say days(specifically days, in the human sense of the word, so nobody try that "a day for god could be a billion years" bullshit) when we know that it took billions of years? And how would this not be in conflict with science?
You know damn well which scripture I'm talking about, it's the only one we're talking about in this thread. Genesis says that god did all of this in days(and the Hebrew is quite specific) when we know that the sun and earth didn't form until some nine billion years after the universe began, and even then it took nearly four point five billion years more for humans to get here. Again, a blatant contradiction of the Genesis narrative.
So, why does the Genesis account say days(specifically days, in the human sense of the word, so nobody try that "a day for god could be a billion years" bullshit) when we know that it took billions of years? And how would this not be in conflict with science?
@Jan --
PS: If you don't know what a Poe is even though you're discussing religion, with atheists, on the internet, then you're way behind the times. Here's some required reading for you. Have fun.
PS: If you don't know what a Poe is even though you're discussing religion, with atheists, on the internet, then you're way behind the times. Here's some required reading for you. Have fun.
Thanks for that. I've been in lots of these discussions and missed that concept. I like it. I suppose I intuitively got it and many of my parodies - reduction ad absurdi - have been taken as serious proposals, but I like having a name and description of something I am sort of half conscious of.
Because:
1) at the time the stories were originally created they may not have thought it important.
2) Genesis is the combination of two different creation stories. The two original authors likely did not even know what the other was writing.
3) It has been retranslated several times; the originals no longer exist, and thus translation error may have crept in.
Jan:
I note that once again you have failed to answer the question I asked:
Your response:
I guess this implies that you agree that the two lights mentioned are the sun and the moon. That's progress of sorts, I suppose.
If the Sun and the moon were not visible before day 4 for some mysterious reason, don't you think that it would have been mentioned somewhere in Genesis?
The sensible, literal reading of Genesis tells us that God created the Sun and the Moon on day 4 - after the plants. The author obviously didn't think the matter through, because surely a literate person of a couple of thousand years ago would have understood that plants need sunlight to grow. The only other explanation is God's magic, it would seem.
So you believe in more than one God. What happened to your insistence on the literal truth of the bible, which regularly and repeatedly states that there is only one God?
Were these multiple gods working against each other when the Hebrew god created the Earth as per Genesis? And how do you know all this?
The Hebrew words for "create" and "make" are used interchangeably in the bible, as has been pointed out to you several times. There's no reason to suspect that any careful distinction was being made in Genesis. In fact, evidence from that book itself points to the opposite conclusion, and this has been presented to you previously in this thread.
Yes. There are probably almost as many interpretations of the bible as there are believers.
The bible has many errors, internal contradictions and other flaws.
By "science" I mean established scientific truths, ancient or modern. This does not include previously-accepted scientific theories that were later shown to be false, of course.
The fact is, Genesis, along with certain other parts of the bible, clearly contradicts a number of scientific truths that are now established beyond any reasonable doubt. You can explain way some (but not all) of those contradictions by invoking the magic of an omnipotent being, but what you can't do is to claim that the bible is a scientifically accurate text.
It makes sense. Reading "create" and "make" as equivalent doesn't render the text gibberish. It's just that Genesis is not in accordance with our understanding of the general sequence of formation of light, life on Earth and so on given by science, which is one of those things that has been established beyond doubt. But who knows? Maybe God decided to go against his own science and set out to deceive us regarding the scientific evidence for the formation of the Earth, the universe etc. that he put in place. A malevolent or capricious god, perhaps?
There have been thousands of biblical scholars who have translated and retranslated the bible with a fine tooth comb. If the problem you refer to were real, somebody would have noticed it by now and corrected it.
I note that once again you have failed to answer the question I asked:
JR said:
Your response:
Jan said:
I guess this implies that you agree that the two lights mentioned are the sun and the moon. That's progress of sorts, I suppose.
If the Sun and the moon were not visible before day 4 for some mysterious reason, don't you think that it would have been mentioned somewhere in Genesis?
The sensible, literal reading of Genesis tells us that God created the Sun and the Moon on day 4 - after the plants. The author obviously didn't think the matter through, because surely a literate person of a couple of thousand years ago would have understood that plants need sunlight to grow. The only other explanation is God's magic, it would seem.
Jan said:
So you believe in more than one God. What happened to your insistence on the literal truth of the bible, which regularly and repeatedly states that there is only one God?
Were these multiple gods working against each other when the Hebrew god created the Earth as per Genesis? And how do you know all this?
The Hebrew words for "create" and "make" are used interchangeably in the bible, as has been pointed out to you several times. There's no reason to suspect that any careful distinction was being made in Genesis. In fact, evidence from that book itself points to the opposite conclusion, and this has been presented to you previously in this thread.
Yes. There are probably almost as many interpretations of the bible as there are believers.
The bible has many errors, internal contradictions and other flaws.
By "science" I mean established scientific truths, ancient or modern. This does not include previously-accepted scientific theories that were later shown to be false, of course.
The fact is, Genesis, along with certain other parts of the bible, clearly contradicts a number of scientific truths that are now established beyond any reasonable doubt. You can explain way some (but not all) of those contradictions by invoking the magic of an omnipotent being, but what you can't do is to claim that the bible is a scientifically accurate text.
It makes sense. Reading "create" and "make" as equivalent doesn't render the text gibberish. It's just that Genesis is not in accordance with our understanding of the general sequence of formation of light, life on Earth and so on given by science, which is one of those things that has been established beyond doubt. But who knows? Maybe God decided to go against his own science and set out to deceive us regarding the scientific evidence for the formation of the Earth, the universe etc. that he put in place. A malevolent or capricious god, perhaps?
There have been thousands of biblical scholars who have translated and retranslated the bible with a fine tooth comb. If the problem you refer to were real, somebody would have noticed it by now and corrected it.
1) Very unlikely, given the importance of the information.
2) Two different creation stories?
3) With this approach there is no point in discussing anything about
genesis, so that's off the table.
jan.
Arioch,
It would have been clear had you not mentioned ''the universe''.
From what I make of it, the chapter informs that ''in the begining'' God made the heavens and the earth. The only time reference we have is ''in the begining''.
It doesn't say He created the universe in 6 days, or even the heavens and the earth for that matter. It precisely says ''in the begining God created the heavens and the earth''
jan.
It would have been clear had you not mentioned ''the universe''.
From what I make of it, the chapter informs that ''in the begining'' God made the heavens and the earth. The only time reference we have is ''in the begining''.
It doesn't say He created the universe in 6 days, or even the heavens and the earth for that matter. It precisely says ''in the begining God created the heavens and the earth''
jan.
Pineal,
What is your position regarding theism?
And, are you religious, or asociated with any religious group or organisation?
jan.
What is your position regarding theism?
And, are you religious, or asociated with any religious group or organisation?
jan.
He claims to have read many translations, but, strangely, he's never read the King James Version... :shrug:
Many translations huh? That's funny because the KJV, the New KJV, the NIV, the NLV, and the NLT all specifically use the word "day" repeatedly throughout the creation myth. Beyond that, the ancient Hebrew it was originally written in also uses the word "day" to specifically mean a single day, and "morning and evening" get mentioned a lot too.
Hmm, me thinks someone's fibbing about their biblical knowledge in order to lend credence. Anyone care to take any bets on that?
Hmm, me thinks someone's fibbing about their biblical knowledge in order to lend credence. Anyone care to take any bets on that?
Since when was earth the universe.
And where does it say God created the ''universe'' in six days?
jan.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
I would agree that homo sapien understood the importance of the sun however I wouldn't necessarily expect the author of Genesis to support the nature of science in the opening scene. In other word, I'm not surprised by the mistake.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
There are numerous references to days in Genesis. For example, "Let there be light" was an event on the first day. "God made two great lights" was an event on the fourth day. "God created man in his own image" was an event of the sixth day.....etc etc etc. "He rested on the seventh day".
Would you not conclude that God created and made Everything according to the time table given in Genesis?
I'm speaking literally of coarse :bugeye:
Why do you think that it was important AT THE TIME IT WAS FIRST CREATED? Might it have been a creation story told by an ancient tribesman that got passed down through generations?
Yes. Genesis 1 (and the very first part of Genesis 2) is one story; the second story starts in Genesis 2. A quick reading will reveal the differences.
I have to disagree there. We have learned a lot about the Bible by understanding how people have translated idiom into literal language. Take the fat man and the needle parable, for example; we now understand that a lot better than we did because we now understand what that idiom was referring to.