Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[greentwiga]

It isn't fact that Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites after 1200 BC. It is just an interpretation of certain facts. I have studied the facts carefully. There is plenty of facts that fit the 1400 BC exodus. For example, the account of Deborah shows a time that the Israelites were more a group of poor wanderers. The Bible states that the Israelites were frequently worshiping other Gods. So for you to say that there were few deities and that they mostly worshiped other Gods doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong. It agrees with the Bible.

 

[Gui10]

So many things don't add up in Genesis. Like the Sun and stars, not only were they created after the Earth, but created after plants? But then, I was wondering; Adam gets kicked out of Eden and has to till the soil? This is based on Gen 4:23 and 4:2 where Adam is sent out to "cultivate" the ground and his son Cain was a "tiller" of the ground. What did they till it with? Did God make them a plow and a hoe or something? And then Abel, why was he keeping flocks? Weren't they vegetarians? Was it for wool? Did God make Eve a loom and Abel some shears?

I see Genesis as religious poetry, but some Christians, and I guess some Jews, see it as literal. Ken Ham on his TV show Answers in Genesis, insists that it must be taken literal, that it is foundational, without it the whole of the Bible falls. What do you think.

I see it as pure poetry from authors with questionable objectives.

 

[gnostic]

Not so.
Belief is more than nodding your head.

And crippling your thought by limiting your acceptance is just that.....lame.
The 'evidence' is all around you.
You are part of that 'evidence'.

Your shallow denial is noted.

The every same could be said about you, thief.

There are all sort of evidences that clearly demonstrated the law of nature or the law of physics don't require some sorts of supernatural divine being's actions or interventions in order for NATURE to exist the ways they do.

Seeing God's hand in everything, is not objectively looking at the evidences that can be observed or tested; seeing god's involvement with nature is denying reality.

Scientists have far better explanations (theories) about the Earth, Sun, Moon and stars, biology (both of animals and plant life) with supporting evidences than what is given the bible's Genesis (or creation).

The creation in Genesis should be view as traditional theological allegory, not science or history. Genesis 2 & 3 has moral messages and other symbolic meanings, which I actually understand.

You've wrote that you believe that evolution is a fact (back in post 621). That's good, because all evolution is biology that deal with diversity, in which life survive by adapting to changing environments or conditions. The mechanism is there in nature, and it doesn't require God to explain this natural biological mechanism.

If there really anything wrong with methodological naturalism?

Ignoring the evidences in natural science is crippling, intellectually.

 

[rusra02]

It's not just a pelvis, it's two femurs as well. These vestigial parts show that intelligent design is not plausible. Why would God create an organ or part which serves absolutely no purpose at all? Better yet, why does this "design" sometimes come with defects such as Down's syndrome, hermaphroditism, people being born with missing body parts, infertility, cancer, etc. If that's "intelligent" design, I don't even want to know what unintelligent design looks like. Is God drunk or something?

I believe you can find answers as to why there are disease and malformities. The answers are in the Bible. So called vestigial organs are not proof of evolution but of man's extremely limited knowledge of God's creative genius. The example you mentioned is but one of many. Jehovah's genius, I think, is clearly revealed in the recycling that cleans our air, refreshes our water supply, provides green vegetation, and cleans waste. Man's recycling efforts are insignificant, by comparison.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I believe you can find answers as to why there are disease and malformities. The answers are in the Bible.

Perhaps you would like to explain where genetic malformities are mentioned in the Bible. I used to be a practicing Pentecostal for 14 years and never once ran across a passage mentioning such things. I do, however, remember a passage saying that humans were all created in God's likeness, so is he deformed and missing limbs too?

 

[allright]

Perhaps you would like to explain where genetic malformities are mentioned in the Bible. I used to be a practicing Pentecostal for 14 years and never once ran across a passage mentioning such things. I do, however, remember a passage saying that humans were all created in God's likeness, so is he deformed and missing limbs too?

Genesis 4:11 Who has made mans mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf.the seeing or the the blind ?
Is it not I the Lord

 

[metis]

Genesis 4:11 Who has made mans mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf.the seeing or the the blind ?
Is it not I the Lord

So, do you think God intentionally created genetic defects that cripple and miscarriages?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

So, do you think God intentionally created genetic defects that cripple and miscarriages?

The Bible also says that we were created in God's image. I wonder if he's blind, deaf, and missing body parts too, or did he just do all this for a cheap laugh.

 

[outhouse]

It isn't fact that Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites after 1200 BC. It is just an interpretation of certain facts. I have studied the facts carefully. There is plenty of facts that fit the 1400 BC exodus. For example, the account of Deborah shows a time that the Israelites were more a group of poor wanderers. The Bible states that the Israelites were frequently worshiping other Gods. So for you to say that there were few deities and that they mostly worshiped other Gods doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong. It agrees with the Bible.

They didn't even have their own writing until after 1000 BC and guess what, it was from Canaanite writing.


All of their deities were Canaanite.


And is fact hey did not exist prior to 1200 BC, No one lived in the highlands prior to that except a few Canaanite houses. Then we see a slow emergence, not a mass migration as described

Even around 1200 they were proto Israelite

 

[greentwiga]

Oh, Moses wrote in Proto-Sinaitic script, about 1400 BC We know that the Israelites did not drive out the Canaanites like they were told, and did not subjugate them till much later, a slow dominance. In fact, I would think, from the Bible, that most lived in tents, and the cities mostly contained the Canaanites, and the Israelites that adopted Canaanite practices. The evidence you mention focuses on the digging in the cities, not the herding camps. Your evidence is biased. Even Merenptah mentions the Israelites as an espabl;ished group, not a new group. From the mention, he could not pin down and destroy the people as he could the city dwellers. All he could do is destroy their seed crops. There is another reference from 100 years earlier with a name partially destroyed, but the best analysis is that the name is Israel.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The creation myth presented in Genesis can hold up as an excellent piece of mythology, as for scientific theories.......no.

The issue with the Genesis creation myth as with most religious ones is that is is written on the basis of prophecy and would require the affirmation of the rest of the Bible. The rest of the Bible does not hold up at all to scientific and historical acceptance. It is a domino effect as if 1 pillar falls so does the roof along with everything else it supports. Christianity would collapse upon itself along with genesis.

Genesis ignores all scientific models for cosmology and causality of the universe. If this is the case then it cannot hold up to any crucial reasoning skills based upon observable effects

 

[Benoni]

The creation myth presented in Genesis can hold up as an excellent piece of mythology, as for scientific theories.......no.

The issue with the Genesis creation myth as with most religious ones is that is is written on the basis of prophecy and would require the affirmation of the rest of the Bible. The rest of the Bible does not hold up at all to scientific and historical acceptance. It is a domino effect as if 1 pillar falls so does the roof along with everything else it supports. Christianity would collapse upon itself along with genesis.

Genesis ignores all scientific models for cosmology and causality of the universe. If this is the case then it cannot hold up to any crucial reasoning skills based upon observable effects

And it should, Genesis is spiritual (from a higher realm) which is 100 % contrary to human thinking, human thinking is carnal, earthy (from the the lower realm)

No science will ever see which is spirtual; it is looking for truth all in the wrong places

 

[outhouse]

No science will ever see which is spirtual; it is looking for truth all in the wrong places

YOu ever think its because it is imagination?

 

[outhouse]

Oh, Moses wrote in Proto-Sinaitic script, about 1400 BC .

He factually did not

And you don't have a single credible source to back this

and the Israelites that adopted Canaanite practices.

NO

they were Canaanites

Your evidence is biased.

So far yours is all imaginary

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

And it should, Genesis is spiritual (from a higher realm) which is 100 % contrary to human thinking, human thinking is carnal, earthy (from the the lower realm)

No science will ever see which is spirtual; it is looking for truth all in the wrong places

"Science will never see spiritual things." Oh... how convienent. I believe in flying rainbow space unicorns, but no science will ever see them because they're "spiritual" flying rainbow space unicorns.

 

[Benoni]

"Science will never see spiritual things." Oh... how convienent. I believe in flying rainbow space unicorns, but no science will ever see them because they're "spiritual" flying rainbow space unicorns.

See it as you like, means nothing to me.

1 Corinthians 2:13-15 (Amp)
14But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

 

[outhouse]

1 Corinthians 2:13-15 (Amp)
14But the natural, nonspiritual man does not accept or welcome or admit into his heart the gifts and teachings and revelations of the Spirit of God, for they are folly (meaningless nonsense) to him; and he is incapable of knowing them [of progressively recognizing, understanding, and becoming better acquainted with them] because they are spiritually discerned and estimated and appreciated.

See it as you like, means nothing to me.

 

[greentwiga]

He factually did not

And you don't have a single credible source to back this







NO

they were Canaanites





So far yours is all imaginary

One of the problems with your view is the male Y haplotypes. The Semites were divided into two main groups. The J1 haplotype covers the Semites that lived on the Arabian peninsula. They spread out of Yemen. The J2 haplotype was the Semites that lived in the region near Turkey, especially the land of Kurdistan. When agriculture was invented, the J2 haplotype spread through Greece, Italy and into Spain.

If the Israelites arose out of Canaanites, as you said, then the Jq haplotype would be the very dominant group. If Abraham moved out of Kurdistan, as I said, and then after they grew numerous in Egypt, moved into Canaan, where the occasional J1 man became an Israelite, then the J1 and J2 haplotypes would be about equal and the dominant two groups among the modern Jews

 

[outhouse]

One of the problems with your view is the male Y haplotypes. The Semites were divided into two main groups. The J1 haplotype covers the Semites that lived on the Arabian peninsula. They spread out of Yemen. The J2 haplotype was the Semites that lived in the region near Turkey, especially the land of Kurdistan. When agriculture was invented, the J2 haplotype spread through Greece, Italy and into Spain.

If the Israelites arose out of Canaanites, as you said, then the Jq haplotype would be the very dominant group. If Abraham moved out of Kurdistan, as I said, and then after they grew numerous in Egypt, moved into Canaan, where the occasional J1 man became an Israelite, then the J1 and J2 haplotypes would be about equal and the dominant two groups among the modern Jews

Nonsense


What I posted was fact per Israel Finklestein.



You don't have a clue how to bring in haplotypes to a debate .


Proto Israelites were multi cultural, Israelites continued to be multi cultural for thousands of years.




I love the way you cherry pick science to suit your needs, and denounce it other times based on ignorance alone.

 

[greentwiga]

You seem to assume that I don't have a concept about science. You also indicate that Finkelstein is the only authority. There are others that disagree with him. Whyh should I accept Finkelstein as the one with the "facts," especially when the facts you refer to are interpretations based on facts.