• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Or... You know, he could have just punished THEM and left the rest of us alone, or better yet he could have NOT put a giant caused tree in the middle of a garden for no other purpose than to taunt two people who did not know right from wrong to begin with. Why did he put it there in the first place, if he foreknew that if he did, they would disobey, and all of mankind would have ended up being cursed with death, disease, and illness befalling innocent people? Let me know when the position for god becomes open. I'm sure I could do a better job than the current one, and I sure as hell wouldn't treat MY creation like that.

Would you blame the owner of a house for renting the house to a seemingly responsible couple who proceeds to trash the house, for then evicting them? Both Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God, and they knew the penalty. You are blaming God for what man and Satan caused. God has made arrangements to correct the problems caused by wicked creatures. (John 3:16) and to thinking people, there is no doubt God's rule is preferable to going one's own way, deciding what is good or bad for ourselves. In short, I believe we need God, he doesn't need us. (Jeremiah 10:23, Ezekiel 18:29)
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Would you blame the owner of a house for renting the house to a seemingly responsible couple who proceeds to trash the house, for then evicting them? Both Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God, and they knew the penalty. You are blaming God for what man and Satan caused. God has made arrangements to correct the problems caused by wicked creatures. (John 3:16) and to thinking people, there is no doubt God's rule is preferable to going one's own way, deciding what is good or bad for ourselves. In short, I believe we need God, he doesn't need us. (Jeremiah 10:23, Ezekiel 18:29)

If I created the house with my bare hands as well as the rest of the world and then proceded to create these individuals intentionally so that they would make mistakes it still seems like a dick move for me to blame them for doing what I designed them to do in the first place. :shrug:
 

Triumphant_Loser

Libertarian Egalitarian
Would you blame the owner of a house for renting the house to a seemingly responsible couple who proceeds to trash the house, for then evicting them? Both Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to disobey God, and they knew the penalty. You are blaming God for what man and Satan caused.
Some problems with your analogy:
1.) What homeowner in their right mind would rent a house to an incompetent couple if he knew beforehand that they would trash the house? If he did, I'd blame him just as much for his sheer stupidity.
2.) Why would you evict other future occupants for the wrongdoings of the previous couple? (Original sin)

Also, as an aside, who created Satan to begin with? Why did he create him, knowing beforehand that he would go to hell and drag a majority of mankind with him?
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
I think most Jews still believe that there was an Exodus. Shanks is not unusual in this.

Yet there is no evidence for it.

And what evidence we do have is completely overwhelming to the point they claim it is fact that Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites.


I understand how important Moshe is to the apologetic. But apologetics have never dictated history.


By the way, you seem especially interested in this topic. I guess you are quite compassionate toward the Jewish people. Am I reading you right ?



To me it is the truest form of the Abrahamic traditions. When read properly the first five books are epics that have beauty.
 

Avi1001

reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Yet there is no evidence for it.

And what evidence we do have is completely overwhelming to the point they claim it is fact that Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites.

I understand how important Moshe is to the apologetic. But apologetics have never dictated history.

To me it is the truest form of the Abrahamic traditions. When read properly the first five books are epics that have beauty.

You seem to be making an argument that there was no Exodus. Even if you use Finkelstein and Shanks works, there was still an Exodus, it was just over a longer time period, 1500-1200 BC and smaller numbers went in multiple trips.

I also do not see your argument about Canaanites vs. Israelites, but I am sure most Jews would agree with your position, because it reinforces that Jews were the original inhabitants of present day Israel. Is that your point ?

I couldn't be further from an apologist. I am looking for facts and figures and logical analysis.

You didn't answer my question about how you feel about Jews. What about Muslims and Buddhists ? Do you feel compassion toward other religions or resentment ? I am just trying to see where you are coming from.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
You seem to be making an argument that there was no Exodus..

No the facts do that for me.



Even if you use Finkelstein and Shanks works, there was still an Exodus

Nonsense

People did not leave at the same time.

We have a slow resedentarization of local people who filled the highlands over a 200 year period. They kept the same local writing, language and deities.

What we see after 1000BC is multi cultural groups that have grown their own identity between north and south, who's writigs were later combined together.
 

Avi1001

reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically

Avi1001

reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Excellent read.

Valuable for understanding in depth the southern structure of polity from 1000BC to 850BC and a few aspects of the northern kingdom.

I think you read the wrong book. This one focuses on the North from page 37 on :).
 
Last edited:

outhouse

Atheistically
I think you read the wrong book. This one focuses on the North from page 37 on :).


http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/9781589839106dwld_txt.pdf

However, the main discussion concentrates on a
shorter period of time: the rise of territorial polity in the central highlands
of Israel between circa 1000 and 850 b.c.e. The Late Bronze Age is discussed
mainly as a model for which we obtain reasonably good archaeological
and historical materials. The last century in the history of the north​
is mentioned only in passing toward the end of the book.
 

Avi1001

reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/9781589839106dwld_txt.pdf

However, the main discussion concentrates on a
shorter period of time: the rise of territorial polity in the central highlands
of Israel between circa 1000 and 850 b.c.e. The Late Bronze Age is discussed
mainly as a model for which we obtain reasonably good archaeological
and historical materials. The last century in the history of the north​
is mentioned only in passing toward the end of the book.

How are you at literary analysis ? What do you think is the most important new finding of this book ?

Yes, the focus is on the shorter timeframe.

Do you think Finkelstein strengthens his argument against the Davidic and Solomonic monarchies ?
 
Last edited:

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
***Staff Post***

This thread had a minor clean-up of posts. Please keep in mind rules 1, 3, and 11. All posts should be intended to be constructive.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Skim it first, intro. and conclusions. Also, look at the pictures and figures. That is how you analyze complex academic literature. Later we can do detailed analysis.


Nope, I'm home now and I need to read it all. [been working all day]

There is much in the overall details to his opinion that need to be understood.


I often go over things a few times until I grasp the concepts as much is over my head.
 

greentwiga

Active Member
Agreed.

With the exception of Shanks, he posits bias over evidence.


He ignores this below and it something he will have to deal with because the evidence is hard and solid.

Nothing can be found to turn this over.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite, and almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.



When we put the exodus mythology next to Noah and Babel, and creation mythology, why even try and place it in a historical context? it is theology that is beautiful, not history.

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος, exodos, "going out") is the "charter myth" of Israel;

The reality is that below probably describes what we have closer to any truth possible.

In a recent work, Stephen C. Russell traces the 8th century prophetic tradition to three originally separate variants, in the northern kingdom of Israel, in Trans-Jordan, and in the southern kingdom of Judah. Russell proposes different hypothetical historical backgrounds to each tradition: the tradition from Israel, which involves a journey from Egypt to the region of Bethel, he suggests is a memory of herders who could move to and from Egypt in times of crisis; for the Trans-Jordanian tradition, which focuses on deliverance from Egypt without a journey, he suggests a memory of the withdrawal of Egyptian control at the end of the Late Bronze Age; and for Judah, whose tradition is preserved in the Song of the Sea, he suggests the celebration of a military victory over Egypt, although it is impossible to suggest what this victory may have been

Even the "creation" story of Adam and Eve is historical. It remember the exact place and time of the domestication of wheat. the rest of the account reflects historical reality also.

Noah's flood is clearly a flood plain flood, and retained the knowledge that the ark was a reed boat while the rest of the world forgot for 4,000 years. It also places the ziggurats made of bricks and tar right after Noah, as Archaeology shows.

Myths made up around 1,000 BC or more recent would have gotten most of these points wrong because they had no idea they existed.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
greentwiga said:
Noah's flood is clearly a flood plain flood, and retained the knowledge that the ark was a reed boat while the rest of the world forgot for 4,000 years. It also places the ziggurats made of bricks and tar right after Noah, as Archaeology shows.

What does brick have to do with Noah or the Flood? And what do Noah have to do with the ziggurats?

I don't see the links here. Why are you bringing up bricks and ziggurats? Nothing in Genesis mention anything about bricks or ziggurats, or am I missing something (imaginary) that you are seeing?

Evidences showed that people of the Indus Valley, have been using fired bricks as early as 2900 BCE. And people have been using clay or mud bricks in the Middle East as early 7600 BCE.

And the oldest ziggurat, found to date, is not in the Mesopotamia, but in ancient Elamite city, now known as Tepe Sialk, called the Sialk ziggurat, c 3000 BCE.

All these predate the supposed Noah's Flood in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
You may not be aware that "scientific" radioactive dating relies on assumptions that are very questionable, and in fact, are being questioned. A google search of radioactive dating methods reveals the doubts raised by some scientists.

Generally speaking, most radioactive dating are not in any way "questionable" as the half-lives can be and have been calculated, so there's really no guesswork involved. If what you say above were to be correct, then we would have no clue how nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons actually work, and that's obviously not the case.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Even the "creation" story of Adam and Eve is historical. .

:jester3:

How so?

Evolution and the facts surrounding it place this square into mythology.


It remember the exact place and time of the domestication of wheat. the rest of the account reflects historical reality also

Only with two handfuls of imagination.


Israelites did not exist prior to 1200 BC. None of their legends reflect any aspect of their real herritage from 1200 BC to 1000 BC.

These legends were no finished or fully written until 600 years after they became their own culture.



Noah's flood is clearly a flood plain flood, and retained the knowledge that the ark was a reed boat while the rest of the world forgot for 4,000 years. It also places the ziggurats made of bricks and tar right after Noah, as Archaeology shows.

Archeology shows that there was a river flood in 2900BC on the Euphrates. A regional flood happened to a Sumerians who started the flood mythology based on this real event.


The tale of Noah is self admitted to be cross cultural mythology. as they state Noah came from Mesopotamia. It is obvious these prior myths influenced Israelites after their return from Mesopotamia after the Exile. :facepalm:



Myths made up around 1,000 BC or more recent would have gotten most of these points wrong because they had no idea they existed

And that is exactly what we see. Israelites created their own history to give these poor oppresed and beaten down people a much better history then they really lived.
 
Top