Questions about the Creation Myth.

[swivel]

As far as I'm concerned there is no correct one, it's just a mesh of stories.

I'm trying to figure out what could have been meant by the original writers by certain statements in Genesis, and if it in fact is possible.

Also, along the way, some interesting issues have come up

That's my point. The two creation stories contradict one another. Since one of them is not true, the most likely case is that neither of them is true. Remove the infallibility of the book, and there is no other evidence to prop up what is obviously a primitive people trying to give their people a story to answer a very difficult question: "How did we get here?"

What fascinates me is that mankind has always wanted the answer to this question, and now that we have it almost completely worked out, a large swath of us refuse to accept it.

 

[Enmos]

Of course it's a bit far-fetched, we are discussing the origin of the universe, and it's entire contents.
What did you expect?
It popped into existence out of thin...er nothing?

I mean, the conclusions drawn here are based on.. well, nothing. Making assumption such as those only raises more problems and impossibilities.

The process of making the body starts with information, (DNA) then, nature constructs.

That is simply impossible. You just can't just drop a strand of DNA somewhere and have nature built it into a creature..

There are two ways to approach this discussion.
You can discuss from the point of view of your actual OP, and try and refute the "creation myth" from there.
Or you can create your own god, then knock it down till your hearts content.
I propose we attempt the former, as the latter has been done to death.

I'm taking what's written in Genesis and then attempt to make it logical, or at least somewhat acceptable. I want to figure out what the writers exactly meant.

Why thorough testing?
Are you working from the premise that God is God?

I was just being semi-funny. Look here for example:

Genesis 1:5
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Here God says "Let there be light", and all of a sudden there it is. It's as if God just needs to say it for it to come into existence.

Genesis 1:6
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
But here, in essentially the same context, God needs to physically make the expanse and separate the waters.

I think the reason that it isn't described how God exactly made light is that the had no clue how to describe it. They could imagine creating expanses and separating waters, but not creating light from scratch.
If you read Genesis 1 this way, it's reasonable to assume that God physically worked on creating the creature, not just calling them into existence.

BUT something else that is striking is that He says, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters," as if he doesn't even 'do' it himself, but rather that it 'just happened'. It is as if God is the laws of nature that describe how the universe came to be rather than being a sentient being that created everything by hand.
This points to roots in early nature religions that honored nature itself before religion started to anthropomorphize it's 'deities' - just speculating here of course.

Breaking down?
Where does it say that?

I figured it follows logically. If you are going to make a living being out of clay, you need to break down the molecules and build others from them.

Didn't he command the earth to bring forth the animals?
The information (DNA) may well have been given in the command, then nature transformed it into DNA.

Doesn't this sound surreal to you ? So he just said, "Hey Earth, buddy, bring forth some animals, will ya. Oh uh.. here's how you do it." ?
This can only make sense (to me) if God actually is nature (=reality) itself, rather than being a sentient being commanding it.

Your mixing his commanding the earth to bring forth life, with the personal creation of Adam. If you are going to dismiss this, then at least do so in context.
Your attempt to trivualise the scenario, thereby making it seem impossible, is, if nothing else, childish.

I think we have ample proof that humans are in fact animals and share a common ancestor with all other animals. So Adam should have been created in the same way as the other animals were created. It only follows logically.

Why couldn't he be the origin of DNA?
The raw material were obviously there in the creation, all it need was the information, and the process to begin constuction.

I'm not saying he wasn't, just that he also was the origin of the body.

I don't know.

:shrug:

God (soul) commands his manifestion (nature).
That's the relationship. DNA is constucted by nature under the command of God (spirit/soul)

jan.

Agreed, provided that God, in fact, is reality itself.. the forces of nature if you will.
You are using the term nature here to only describe living things, while I use the definition 'everything'.

 

[Enmos]

That's my point. The two creation stories contradict one another. Since one of them is not true, the most likely case is that neither of them is true. Remove the infallibility of the book, and there is no other evidence to prop up what is obviously a primitive people trying to give their people a story to answer a very difficult question: "How did we get here?"

What fascinates me is that mankind has always wanted the answer to this question, and now that we have it almost completely worked out, a large swath of us refuse to accept it.

Yep. But there must be some sanity hidden in there. And I'm interested in how they meant it, even if the two stories contradict each other.
See my previous post

 

[Enmos]

Never seen that before and don't think that applies in U.S.

It says European countries. So it probably won't apply in the US, no.
But, as you probably know, I am from Europe

 

[Saquist]

Thanks.


Well, I haven't heard conclusive evidence for either theory. So I'm going with the one that seems to most probable to me, until of course another one gains convincing evidence.

On Moses as the writer of the 5 books:

It seems they're are many references in the Bible books about
"The book of the law of Moses" and such phrases from the time of Joshua, onward. One sources says "some 200 references to Moses in 27 of the later Bible Books. Writership was never questioned by the Jews. Of course the Chrisitian Greek Scriptures make numerous references to Moses more than 1,500 years later as writer of "the law".

Normally, (In a court of Law) when writership is questioned there is the benefit of the jury considering two points of evidence, The trends of the writings as well as the penmanship. This is a forensic science but not a science of precision.

Questioned document examination (QDE) is the forensic science discipline pertaining to documents that are (or may be) in dispute in a court of law. The primary purpose of questioned/forensic document examination is to answer questions about a disputed document using a variety of scientific processes and methods. Many examinations involve a comparison of the questioned document, or components of the document, to a set of known standards. The most common type of examination involves handwriting wherein the examiner tries to address concerns about potential authorship.

A document examiner is often asked to determine if a questioned item originated from the same source as the known item(s), then present their opinion on the matter in court as an expert witness. Other common tasks include determining what has happened to a document, determining when a document was produced, or deciphering information on the document that has been obscured, obliterated or erased.

Not the same as a graphologist

Juries are informed before the considering the testimony of the QED that their conclusions are not definitive.

Genesis 1:25

I haven't found much yet but I did version/tranlation research into the scripture. I'm still looking for the hebrew english break down. But as for translation agreement...


"After"

American Standard:

AC)Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.


King James:

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

"According"

English Standard:

25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.



New King James:

And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


New International Version:

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

New World Translation:

And God proceeded to make the wild beast of the earth according to it's kind and the domestic animals according to its kind and every moving animal of the ground according to it's kind. And God got to see that it was good.


Amplified Bible:

25And God made the [wild] beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and domestic animals according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good (fitting, pleasant) and He approved it.


The Holy Scriptures (J.N. Darby):

And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Holmans Christian Standar Bible:

So God made the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Using "According" and "After"

Douay Rheims:

25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good.


Doway Version:

And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and
cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And
God saw that it was good.

Alternate Translations

New Century Version:

So God made the wild animals, the tame animals, and all the small crawling animals to produce more of their own kind. God saw that this was good.


An American Translation:

And so it was. God made the various kinds of wild beasts of
the earth, the various kinds of domestic animals,


New Living Translation:

God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. And God saw that it was good.


The Bible in Living English:

God [thus] made particular species of beasts of the earth, particular species of livestock, and particular species of animals that walk the land. God saw that it was good

This is a sample of course but many of the modern...if not all of the modern translations agree with the word "According" rather than after this of course being the change of english into modern english and the usage of words in the past.

 

[Saquist]

They most definitely are. In history, there is an objective, potentially knowable past. Something either happened or didn't happen. As with all arguments, historical arguments are rated on their truth-values. For an historical argument, the truth value is dependent upon the probabilities that the premises and, thus, the conclusions are sound.

I agree but there already exist a historical prescendent.
I agree that they can be considered "claims" but not the same sort of claims I mentioned and therefore far more difficult validate. But as you say it's a truth value but not only dependent on probabilities, but also as it's compared to it's comtemporaries, and the trend toward truth or mere manipulation. There are alot of factors to consider.

S

ound historical premises are established by observation and validation. One cannot establish a "history" simply by reading a culture's mythology since this represents things like ideal states which the culture perceives as true. Instead, one need take references from the mythology and begin validating them independently with other documents -preferably competing or independent sources like other cultures- and by evaluating or observing the archaeological record.

That is true as well. However, this also includes all the information not some of it which means the cultural significance aswell. It all plays a part.

I come at history from an archaeological and anthropological perspective and thus make predictions derived from hypothesis to which I look for confirmation. For instance, I said earlier that many of the writings in the Old Testament (Pentateuch) were later adaptations of the writings and cultural stories of other, older cultures in the region. This is an historical premise. If such a premise holds, then I should be able to show examples of such writings. I can actually list a multitude of them, Neitzefan did so above with the Enum Elish. There are many others found in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts among others. Most notably, and discussed a year or so ago between us, the Noachian Flood myth which was clearly derived from the Sumerian flood story in Gilgamesh.

I remember. The only difference is that I let the evidence speak for it's self instead of speaking in assumptions. I won't make a premise on before or after simply based on time from of creation. Nor can I confirm derivied. I can only confirm consensus. I have to recognize and neutralize my own bias aswell as everyone else's. Times aren't a given.

Which is the point I was making and its no small point. Not being a scientist means not understanding science and the methods of science the way we do and, thus, describing/explaining the world in terms of superstition. I'm glad we agree on this point.

I'm obliged to recognize science's dedication to precision and what it means for those that do not.

Cannot one excavate sites mentioned in an ancient myth or text? Cannot one cross-evaluate the texts of other contemporary and even earlier cultures for similar themes and note the evolution of the motif? If one hypothesizes that a mythical tale is an embellished form of an earlier story from an earlier culture, would not the less-embellished version of the same (nearly word-for-word) tale indicate a confirmation of the hypothesis? Conversely, wouldn't an absence of similar tales, less-embellished versions and such in older cultures indicate an actual history and not a myth?

But we can not track the dispersal, we can't establish origins and migration. Stories change but how they change is speculative on our part. That's why I mentioned a pattern of validity. That pattern is more precious than any speculation but even it isn't perfect.

Why not. Experiments, after all, are simply hypothesizing, deriving expectations or making predictions and applying these rules to other situations. If they hold, they're probably true. The alternative is the supernatural and that's just bunk to begin with. So why wouldn't a rational explanation that's probable be favored over an irrational one that improbable?

Experiments are equations. Insert variables and recieve an answer. This cannot truely be done with history. Rational, is subjective and not a precise science.

It has nothing to do with the judicial system, which is the poorest example of application of scientific thinking and method. It has everything to do with observing the material past and arriving at logical conclusions based on what is found. The past need not be "replicated." It sits, waiting for us to uncover it, excavate it, and measure it. When I look at striations of cut marks on a bone, I know whether the marks are teeth or blade -and if blade whether metal or stone. I know this through experimentation and observation and the culmination of data on the subject.

Yes, it is the poorest execution of scientic discovery but it superior to scientific judiciary system which often makes mistakes in accepting valid theories because of it's "favor/reptuation" based system. The Judicial system removes bias and allows for equal hearing and there have been few rulings I've disagreed with.

That is why when I hear people who already have irrational and baseless supernatural conclusions about the world around them speak, I consider them ignorant and undereducated because they rarely take the opportunity to consider where true information comes from. They're satisfied learning about the history of China and terra cotta warriors and accept the archaeological interpretation as valid, but they don't dare consider what genuine archaeologists have to say about the Levant. They're content with the scientific explanations for the construction of Athens, its pantheon of gods, and its democracy and rarely question how this information is derived, but doubt every single last word even when the data are compiled and made available if that word is contrary to their preconceived conclusions regarding their religion.

That my friend is ignorance and not science.

We're all ignorant about something...
I understand how you feel. Alot of people believe that I am arrogant about this information. They really have no idea what arrogance is. I don't look down on them because of what they don't know. I accepted that I have had better opportunities to do this research that I had more ...shall we say intresting childhood that allowed me to more inquisivitve. I know many of us humans have more pressing concerns of survival.

By that logic, then, nor can you accept it. The best you can do is remain neutral. Would you say you are neutral to the question of these events?

By that logic, I would be neutral yet it is not the end product of that logic because I search for more so the process is ongoing. Temporary conclusions can be made and ultimately a final conclusion. So when I considered Greek, Roman, concepts it's with a neutral perspective and not with a preconception. It's the positive assumption that allows for further discovery on the basis that the text isn't ENTIRELY myth but that there maybe something valid being offered. This prevents me from throwing out potentially relevant tidbits from consideration, it allows for discovery of something that might be concealed in plain sight. It allows me to catch that which others may miss or discard, but only based on contemporary consensus.

I somewhat agree with this. The difference between you and I is that I actually see facts where you turn blind eye out of reverence for your religious ideology.

You say blind...I say...allowance. I say allowance because rationale is subjective to emotion. I really have no use for that, and in order to be ojective I have to recognize my own attachments and abandon them. I don't think many do this and they betray scientific accuracy for disdain which I also have no use for. I just need the facts, no interpretations, extrapolations, speculations and hyperbolie.

Ah, but literature can be evaluated and critiqued based on a scientific method. Trends, styles and linguistic devices can be seriated and the resulting data compared and contrasted with other data sets.

The precision of literature is in modern writing, establishing the propper structure of a body of work, grammar, punctuation, definition. Almost everything else is an uncommon frame of reference and therefore an uncertainty.

So don't blow the smoke of ignorance up my ass and claim its the sunshine of wisdom.

Excuse me I don't understand.

Regardless, the days of this subforum being a home to an a priori assumption of the existence of gods needs to draw to a close. From here on out, I'll moderate with the eye towards science first and superstition last. If religious adherents want to provide their perspectives on the literary value of the words -i.e. the authors of Book XX of the Bible intended this or that, then they are free to. But assumption that a god exists is going to start being interpreted as preaching and edited/deleted as such

The exception might be those thread where a clear philosophical debate is occurring. Otherwise, threads like this one -a question about mythology- will adhere to just that: mythology.

I can only be objective. The moderation is your job Skinwalker. It' my obligation as a memeber to abide by your judgement.

 

[Enmos]

This is a sample of course but many of the modern...if not all of the modern translations agree with the word "According" rather than after this of course being the change of english into modern english and the usage of words in the past.

Hmm ok.. thanks Saquist.
I can't get these modern translations from the 'after' and 'according' versions. I suspect it has something to do with English not being my first language.
Oh well.. I guess this one is solved then

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

I mean, the conclusions drawn here are based on.. well, nothing. Making assumption such as those only raises more problems and impossibilities.

That is simply impossible. You just can't just drop a strand of DNA somewhere and have nature built it into a creature..

I wasn't implying that.
We know there is a natural process (varies in different species) for pro-creation in which nature acts.
We can understand that God can pro-create with nature, by his production of Adam.
So why couldn't he pro-create with nature on this mass-scale?

I'm taking what's written in Genesis and then attempt to make it logical, or at least somewhat acceptable. I want to figure out what the writers exactly meant.

Then all you have to is read what they wrote. It's that simple.

Genesis 1:5
Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Here God says "Let there be light", and all of a sudden there it is. It's as if God just needs to say it for it to come into existence.

"...and God separated the light from the darkness."

Maybe there is more to it.

Genesis 1:6
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
But here, in essentially the same context, God needs to physically make the expanse and separate the waters.

Why do you
think he physically made the expanse?

If you read Genesis 1 this way, it's reasonable to assume that God physically worked on creating the creature, not just calling them into existence.

It says he made Adam (I suppose you could say physically), but he commanded nature to bring forth life.

BUT something else that is striking is that He says, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters," as if he doesn't even 'do' it himself, but rather that it 'just happened'. It is as if God is the laws of nature that describe how the universe came to be rather than being a sentient being that created everything by hand.
This points to roots in early nature religions that honored nature itself before religion started to anthropomorphize it's 'deities' - just speculating here of course.

But that's not what it says.
It explains God as "Spirit", not matter.
What early religions are you refering to?
And at what point in mans existence did they start to anthropomorphize its dieties?
Your speculation need some
answers to these questions.

I figured it follows logically. If you are going to make a living being out of clay, you need to break down the molecules and build others from them.

Which follows logically?
The commander in chief declares war on Iraq so he grabs his gun, takes a taxi to the airport, and catches the next plane to Iraq.
Or he makes his decision, informs his cabinet and the generals, who inform whoever they need to, and so on.

"hou shalt not have any gods before me", implies there are gods.
The definition of gods are male beings with god-like powers whose various jobs are overseers of the universal affairs. This goes for godesses.

Doesn't this sound surreal to you ? So he just said, "Hey Earth, buddy, bring forth some animals, will ya. Oh uh.. here's how you do it." ?
This can only make sense (to me) if God actually is nature (=reality) itself, rather than being a sentient being commanding it.

If God was nature, He wouldn't be God.
So it is pointless to harp on that, unless you would prefer God to be nature.

I think we have ample proof that humans are in fact animals and share a common ancestor with all other animals. So Adam should have been created in the same way as the other animals were created. It only follows logically.

That would depend on God's will.
It all boils down to whether or not you believe in God,

provided that God, in fact, is reality itself.. the forces of nature if you will.
You are using the term nature here to only describe living things, while I use the definition 'everything'.

I'm using the term nature, as a pocess, or medium in which we get a temporary sample of reality (life).
To me, God is the animator of nature, and his position is normal, as in, not coming into being , or going out of being.
I don't know anybody who embraces
becoming old, being sick, or dieing,
and I doubt any sane person would embrace these things. Why? Because it is not natural to us, the living beings. If it was nature to us, we would accept it with glee.

jan

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,
I wasn't implying that.
We know there is a natural process (varies in different species) for pro-creation in which nature acts.
We can understand that God can pro-create with nature, by his production of Adam.
So why couldn't he pro-create with nature on this mass-scale?

I think I must have misunderstood. Did you mean it like Saquist showed with the modern translations ?

Then all you have to is read what they wrote. It's that simple.

It isn't for me. Taking what they wrote literally doesn't make much sense to me.

"...and God separated the light from the darkness."

Maybe there is more to it.

No.. he first 'made' the light just by saying, "Let there be light," only then he separated it from the darkness.

Why do you
think he physically made the expanse?

As opposed to 'saying' (commanding if you will) it into existence.

It says he made Adam (I suppose you could say physically), but he commanded nature to bring forth life.

This doesn't sit well with biology. Humans and animals are the same.

But that's not what it says.
It explains God as "Spirit", not matter.
What early religions are you refering to?
And at what point in mans existence did they start to anthropomorphize its dieties?
Your speculation need some
answers to these questions.

Yes, God as spirit could be another metaphor, if God is really the forces of nature.
I don't have any examples handy, but isn't it the consensus that early man worshiped aspects of nature rather than Gods ?
It is not too far-fetched to assume that these aspects of nature got anthropomorphized later on, as this lies within the nature of man.

Which follows logically?
The commander in chief declares war on Iraq so he grabs his gun, takes a taxi to the airport, and catches the next plane to Iraq.
Or he makes his decision, informs his cabinet and the generals, who inform whoever they need to, and so on.

I don't get your analogy.
You agree that clay is made up of molecules different from those found in living things, right ?
At some point the 'clay-molecules' must have been converted to 'living-thing-molecules'. Agree ?
The only way to do that is by taking apart the 'clay-molecules' and reassemble them into the 'living-thing-molecules'. I think this should be evident.

"hou shalt not have any gods before me", implies there are gods.
The definition of gods are male beings with god-like powers whose various jobs are overseers of the universal affairs. This goes for godesses.

I don't know of what relevance this part is ?

If God was nature, He wouldn't be God.

Bear in mind that I use the word nature is follows:

na⋅ture
–noun
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature

If you strip God of any personality, this definition of nature is what remains.

So it is pointless to harp on that, unless you would prefer God to be nature.

It's not about what I prefer, it's about what seems the most sensible to me

That would depend on God's will.
It all boils down to whether or not you believe in God,

Hmm I don't know. Of course I am entertaining the possibility of Gods existence for the purpose of this thread.
But there are plenty of religious people that accept evolution, and find a way to incorporate it into their beliefs.
Again, we are basically no different from other animals.
And evolution is fact.

I'm using the term nature, as a pocess, or medium in which we get a temporary sample of reality (life).
To me, God is the animator of nature, and his position is normal, as in, not coming into being , or going out of being.

But you would agree that Jupiter is part of nature, right ? And all the galaxies in existence are part of nature in the same way.
Your definition commits to one special aspect of nature; life.

I don't know anybody who embraces
becoming old, being sick, or dieing,
and I doubt any sane person would embrace these things. Why? Because it is not natural to us, the living beings. If it was nature to us, we would accept it with glee.

But becoming old and to eventually die IS part of our nature. It's, however, also in peoples nature to try and survive no matter what, but we certainly do embrace growing old and dying as a reality, a fact of life.
To do anything else would just be fooling yourself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

I think I must have misunderstood. Did you mean it like Saquist showed with the modern translations ?

I don't know. What is the post number?
I am refering to pro-creation

It isn't for me. Taking what they wrote literally doesn't make much sense to me.

Why not?
It's quite simple.

No.. he first 'made' the light just by saying, "Let there be light," only then he separated it from the darkness.

He said "Let there be light".
Darkness is only understood in the context of light, but he didn't say "Let there be darkness". So what made you think he made light?

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

This doesn't sit well with biology. Humans and animals are the same.

Only biologists really believe that. Most people can understand that there is a wealth of difference between the human and the other animals. Granted we may be made of the same stuff, but humans have a unique capability which makes them distinct.

Yes, God as spirit could be another metaphor, if God is really the forces of nature.

You're right, He could be, but any scripture wouldn't make any sense.

I don't have any examples handy, but isn't it the consensus that early man worshiped aspects of nature rather than Gods ?

Why limit it to early man?
Don't you mean "gods" as there can be only one God?

It is not too far-fetched to assume that these aspects of nature got anthropomorphized later on, as this lies within the nature of man.

You can assume anything, but what lies those assumptions.

I don't get your analogy.

The commander in chief give the nod, and war is inevitable.
In the same way, God gives the nod, and nature acts.

You agree that clay is made up of molecules different from those found in living things, right ?
At some point the 'clay-molecules' must have been converted to 'living-thing-molecules'. Agree ?
The only way to do that is by taking apart the 'clay-molecules' and reassemble them into the 'living-thing-molecules'. I think this should be evident.

We know that nature build bodies. Right?
Boy meets girl, boy and girl have sex, bring new life/body into the world.
The actual process is very simple. And at no time does the man have to assemble molecules, it all happens by nature. All that is needed is the process.
God has his process. With Adam he breathed air into his nostril, with the other animals and humans, he commanded nature to bring forth life, each after its own kind.
I dare say there is more detail to this, but it is not in the bible (at least the one we are privy to).

I don't know of what relevance this part is ?

By saying "thou shalt not worship any gods before me", we can assume that gods exist (from scriptoral perpective).

god

supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe

These gods must also be part and parcel of Gods creation, they are like Gods limbs so to speak. So if God wills something to be done, it gets done.
If breaking down molecules has to be done to create life, then it gets done by Gods will.

Bear in mind that I use the word nature is follows:

na⋅ture
–noun
6. the sum total of the forces at work throughout the universe.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nature

If you strip God of any personality, this definition of nature is what remains.

If I percieve your father striped of his personality then to me, you and your mother is all that remains. But the truth is different.

It's not about what I prefer, it's about what seems the most sensible to me

And the difference is....

Hmm I don't know. Of course I am entertaining the possibility of Gods existence for the purpose of this thread.

And believe me, that is apreciated.

But there are plenty of religious people that accept evolution, and find a way to incorporate it into their beliefs.
Again, we are basically no different from other animals.
And evolution is fact.

To say we are no different from the other animals smack of burial of head in the sand. We are clearly different.

But you would agree that Jupiter is part of nature, right ? And all the galaxies in existence are part of nature in the same way.
Your definition commits to one special aspect of nature; life.

It is because you and I are alive that we can percieve these things,

But becoming old and to eventually die IS part of our nature. It's, however, also in peoples nature to try and survive no matter what, but we certainly do embrace growing old and dying as a reality, a fact of life.
To do anything else would just be fooling yourself.

Why is survival in our nature? Especially if we have produced off-spring.
We should be glad to die naturally, and want to become part of the dirt, our natural progression.
Instead we do not embrace old age and death with any joy (generally).
Why is this?

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Question 3.
And what's with "Our image" and "Our likeness" ?
Were there more Gods, or is it just some sort of majestic plural (lol) ?

There were more gods.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,
I don't know. What is the post number?
I am refering to pro-creation

Post 65. I commented in post 67.

Why not?
It's quite simple.

But.. do you take everything that's in the bible literally ?
You don't try to make sense of things that are unclear or completely unrealistic ?

He said "Let there be light".
Darkness is only understood in the context of light, but he didn't say "Let there be darkness". So what made you think he made light?

"And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

Because it says so.. "Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."

Only biologists really believe that.

Those are the people that study life.. if anyone can know it's them. But it's not only biologists that know it.

Most people can understand that there is a wealth of difference between the human and the other animals. Granted we may be made of the same stuff, but humans have a unique capability which makes them distinct.

So does any animal. Mosquitoes have an unique ability that sets them apart, so do rabbits or snakes.. etc etc.
You're not a human-supremacist are you ?

You're right, He could be, but any scripture wouldn't make any sense.

Why not ? You'd only have to view them in a new light.

Why limit it to early man?
Don't you mean "gods" as there can be only one God?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

You can assume anything, but what lies those assumptions.

Hey look.. I'm just assuming different things than you are.

The commander in chief give the nod, and war is inevitable.
In the same way, God gives the nod, and nature acts.

So.. nature is sentient ?

We know that nature build bodies. Right?
Boy meets girl, boy and girl have sex, bring new life/body into the world.
The actual process is very simple. And at no time does the man have to assemble molecules, it all happens by nature. All that is needed is the process.

That's procreation, not creation.
Procreation (sexual reproduction) happens when two animals, one female and the other one male, each donate half of their genetic material to to combine and form a new, complete, genome in a pre-made cell inside the female.
In creation there aren't any males or females yet, the entire genome needs to be made up from scratch.
Big difference.

God has his process. With Adam he breathed air into his nostril, with the other animals and humans, he commanded nature to bring forth life, each after its own kind.
I dare say there is more detail to this, but it is not in the bible (at least the one we are privy to).

See above, there is a big difference.

By saying "thou shalt not worship any gods before me", we can assume that gods exist (from scriptoral perpective).
god

supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe

These gods must also be part and parcel of Gods creation, they are like Gods limbs so to speak. So if God wills something to be done, it gets done.
If breaking down molecules has to be done to create life, then it gets done by Gods will.

god
supernatural being: one of a group of supernatural male beings in some religions, each of which is worshiped as the personification or controller of some aspect of the universe
hmm..

If I percieve your father striped of his personality then to me, you and your mother is all that remains. But the truth is different.

This is very different. I know my father exists, I see him all the time. He's not just a figure from some ancient book.

And the difference is....

There can be a great difference.
If I'm working out what my financial situation is there is no point in believing all is well (my preference) if the facts clearly show that all is not well (making sense of the data).
Reality doesn't work that way. The truth is often not what I prefer it to be.

And believe me, that is apreciated.

I'm doing my best

To say we are no different from the other animals smack of burial of head in the sand. We are clearly different.

Any species is different from the rest.

It is because you and I are alive that we can percieve these things,

Yea, but so what ?
Do you agree that everything in the universe is a result of nature ?

Why is survival in our nature? Especially if we have produced off-spring.
We should be glad to die naturally, and want to become part of the dirt, our natural progression.
Instead we do not embrace old age and death with any joy (generally).
Why is this?

Because that's how evolution works.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

But.. do you take everything that's in the bible literally ?
You don't try to make sense of things that are unclear or completely unrealistic ?

How is it possible to gain a good understanding of it, if you don't take what is said literally?
How do you understand books, or movies, if you keep trying to rationalise the bits that don't fit into your logic?

Because it says so.. "Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light."

I meant how do you know the light was made, given that the darkness wasn't made, or ordered to come into being.
Perhaps "light" is God, and darkness is unmanifested matter, and God put some light on the situation for the purpose of sight.

Those are the people that study life.. if anyone can know it's them. But it's not only biologists that know it.

Someone who studies engines can conclude that the rolls royce and the combine harvester are the same, in the same way. But we know there're not.

So does any animal. Mosquitoes have an unique ability that sets them apart, so do rabbits or snakes.. etc etc.

I would say they do.
Humans are basically animals, I agree.
But humans are set apart from the other animals in that they understand things
far beyond basic understanding.

Why not ? You'd only have to view them in a new light.

Why would you want to view them "in a new light"?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

We're talking about God, the subject of the bible.
There is only one God (in this context), so to pluralise God,
takes our discussion out of context.

Hey look.. I'm just assuming different things than you are.

Big apologies I typed it wrong. I meant to say; You can assume anything, but what lies [beneath] those assumptions.
My bad.

So.. nature is sentient ?

No.
But nature does act.

That's procreation, not creation.
Procreation (sexual reproduction) happens when two animals, one female and the other one male, each donate half of their genetic material to to combine and form a new, complete, genome in a pre-made cell inside the female.
In creation there aren't any males or females yet, the entire genome needs to be made up from scratch.
Big difference.

You could say that God acts as the male, and nature is the female.
Sexual reproduction is merely the passing of genetic material to produce off-spring.
All beings have the ability to pro-create, that ability must come from somewhere.

This is very different. I know my father exists, I see him all the time. He's not just a figure from some ancient book.

If you didn't see him at all, you'd still know your father exists(ed).
It's just a matter of common sense , really.

Yea, but so what ?

Light = sight = perception = understanding = knowledge = truth.
None of this would occur without life.

Do you agree that everything in the universe is a result of nature ?

Yes.
And I believe that nature is a result of God.

Because that's how evolution works.

How is it that evolution makes us want to survive old-age, disease, and death, despite
having off-spring?
And more importantly, why?

jan.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,
How is it possible to gain a good understanding of it, if you don't take what is said literally?
How do you understand books, or movies, if you keep trying to rationalise the bits that don't fit into your logic?

Isn't that often how literature works ? And the bible is written in a completely different time with different understandings as we have today.
It is only logical to read between the lines and try to relate what the wrote to our understanding. Taking texts from completely different ages literally would be a mistake in my opinion.

I meant how do you know the light was made, given that the darkness wasn't made, or ordered to come into being.
Perhaps "light" is God, and darkness is unmanifested matter, and God put some light on the situation for the purpose of sight.

You don't need light to exist in order to have darkness.

Someone who studies engines can conclude that the rolls royce and the combine harvester are the same, in the same way. But we know there're not.

They are variations of the same concept.

I would say they do.
Humans are basically animals, I agree.
But humans are set apart from the other animals in that they understand things
far beyond basic understanding.

Yes, and that makes us special according to ourselves.
Other animals are equally special in their own rights.

Why would you want to view them "in a new light"?

Because the old one clearly doesn't cut it

We're talking about God, the subject of the bible.
There is only one God (in this context), so to pluralise God,
takes our discussion out of context.

Lets forget about this bit then. I can't even remember what it was about.

Big apologies I typed it wrong. I meant to say; You can assume anything, but what lies [beneath] those assumptions.
My bad.

I figured you forgot a word, I didn't take offense.
My answer remains the same.
We are just assuming different things. Although I'm not quite clear on what you exactly are assuming.

No.
But nature does act.

On command. That indicates sentience.

You could say that God acts as the male, and nature is the female.

Hehe.. so nature is a Goddess ?

Sexual reproduction is merely the passing of genetic material to produce off-spring.
All beings have the ability to pro-create, that ability must come from somewhere.

From basic chemistry.

If you didn't see him at all, you'd still know your father exists(ed).
It's just a matter of common sense , really.

Yes, but God being a sentient being that was around before even the universe itself was, isn't common sense.
We know how sexual reproduction works, not so with pre-existence beings (which are logical fallacies to begin with).

Light = sight = perception = understanding = knowledge = truth.
None of this would occur without life.

Again, so what ?
If there was no life the planets and the stars would still be there.
If the sun would explode tomorrow and kill all life on Earth, there would still be stars and other planets, etc,..
Do you agree ?

Yes.
And I believe that nature is a result of God.

So what role do you believe God had in causing nature to exist ?
Did he just create the forces of nature and then sit back to see what would happen ?

How is it that evolution makes us want to survive old-age, disease, and death, despite
having off-spring?
And more importantly, why?

There is no why to evolution. The more offspring the more chance of some of them surviving and having offspring of their own. People didn't used to get as old as we do now.
There is also care for the offspring evolved, to make sure they will do good in life and produce viable offspring. This requires survival beyond the point of reproduction.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

Isn't that often how literature works ? And the bible is written in a completely different time with different understandings as we have today.

You haven't really answered my questions.

It is only logical to read between the lines and try to relate what the wrote to our understanding. Taking texts from completely different ages literally would be a mistake in my opinion.

IMO, that is a poor standard, because you are making unecessary assumptions.

You don't need light to exist in order to have darkness.

How would one be able to distinguish dark from light?

They are variations of the same concept.

True, but they are different.

Because the old one clearly doesn't cut it

On the contrary. Your only retort so far is that the old one is far-fetched.
Which is what you'd expect when discussion the origin of the universe.

On command. That indicates sentience.

The right action will affect a reaction.

Hehe.. so nature is a Goddess ?

I wouldn't have thought so.

Yes, but God being a sentient being that was around before even the universe itself was, isn't common sense.

Why not?
Someones father could have been around even before his off-spring was.

We know how sexual reproduction works, not so with pre-existence beings (which are logical fallacies to begin with).

How do you know?
We have been discussing God for a while now. Why couldn't God have pro-created with nature, in God's way?
And what is illogical about God?

Again, so what ?
If there was no life the planets and the stars would still be there.
If the sun would explode tomorrow and kill all life on Earth, there would still be stars and other planets, etc,..
Do you agree ?

I don't know.
I wouldn't even be able to guess at this moment, because I just wouldn't know.

So what role do you believe God had in causing nature to exist ?
Did he just create the forces of nature and then sit back to see what would happen ?

I see nature as a form of energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so it could be eternal, a part of the supreme whole.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

He must have created the earth out of something, and it could be that that something was material energy (matter). So what was unmanifested, became manifested.

There is no why to evolution. The more offspring the more chance of some of them surviving and having offspring of their own. People didn't used to get as old as we do now.

That's not an answer to the question.
It seems that evolution (macro) has no answers, but is the reason we are here.

There is also care for the offspring evolved, to make sure they will do good in life and produce viable offspring. This requires survival beyond the point of reproduction.

But what about when the off-spring doesn't need supervision?
And why do old dears now-a-days want to get nipped and tucked, and get laid by big black guys in Barbados and Jamaica?
How does evolution explain that?

jan.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,



You haven't really answered my questions.



IMO, that is a poor standard, because you are making unecessary assumptions.



How would one be able to distinguish dark from light?



True, but they are different.



On the contrary. Your only retort so far is that the old one is far-fetched.
Which is what you'd expect when discussion the origin of the universe.



The right action will affect a reaction.



I wouldn't have thought so.



Why not?
Someones father could have been around even before his off-spring was.



How do you know?
We have been discussing God for a while now. Why couldn't God have pro-created with nature, in God's way?
And what is illogical about God?



I don't know.
I wouldn't even be able to guess at this moment, because I just wouldn't know.



I see nature as a form of energy. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, so it could be eternal, a part of the supreme whole.

1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
1:2 Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.

He must have created the earth out of something, and it could be that that something was material energy (matter). So what was unmanifested, became manifested.



That's not an answer to the question.
It seems that evolution (macro) has no answers, but is the reason we are here.



But what about when the off-spring doesn't need supervision?
And why do old dears now-a-days want to get nipped and tucked, and get laid by big black guys in Barbados and Jamaica?
How does evolution explain that?

jan.

Jan, this is turning into an atheist vs. theist discussion about the existence of God. I rather not go there here.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enmos,

I'm sorry you see it that way.
But before we stop, I would like to know why you think the concept of God, the way
we have been discussing him, is illogical.

jan.

 

[eddie23]

May be there are animals in heaven and our animals were created in their likeness.
In our like ness most likly refers to god and the angles he was talking to.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos,

I'm sorry you see it that way.
But before we stop, I would like to know why you think the concept of God, the way
we have been discussing him, is illogical.

jan.

You mean the sentient being with basically the body plan of a human that was around before existence itself and now resides outside of reality but yet exists ?
Hmm.. tough question

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Yep. But there must be some sanity hidden in there.

Why must there be?