Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

What text did I pervert and how?

Adam and Eve mythology.

There is no historical core.


You fail to realize Israelites wrote pseudo history using mythology

 

[`mud]

As to angels and such. Thief refered to 'brothers upon brothers' or something like that.
Are there any female angels, do they stay home and do choirs, or do they battle like the boys do ?
Just curious ?
~
'mud

 

[Thief]

As to angels and such. Thief refered to 'brothers upon brothers' or something like that.
Are there any female angels, do they stay home and do choirs, or do they battle like the boys do ?
Just curious ?
~
'mud

oh yeah!....now and then I do see artistic portrayal of angels as feminine!

Usually with harp.
Can't say they don't have swords.

 

[`mud]

How do they get all those swords and harps on top of the needle points,
not to mention space for the wings !
~
'mud

 

[greentwiga]

You mean read it in a post hoc manner fitting verses into scientific explanation? Sure if you want to use fallacious reasoning go ahead but you are not going to convince people that can critically think.

Again, you just state accusations. Show me specifically where I twisted either the Bible or science.

 

[outhouse]

Again, you just state accusations. Show me specifically where I twisted either the Bible or science.

You constantly pervert biblical history.


You try and make ties that are not there, and only follow unsubstantiated imaginative guesses.


Make any statement regarding Genesis, and I will gamble your in error.

Adam and Eve mythology.

There is no historical core.


You fail to realize Israelites wrote pseudo history using mythology

 

[greentwiga]

Adam and Eve mythology.

There is no historical core.


You fail to realize Israelites wrote pseudo history using mythology

You mean because I disagree with you and find a historical core (though I can't prove the existence of Adam and Eve themselves) you say I pervert the text? What part did I pervert? The four rivers? Living where fig trees grow? Deciding they Grew wheat because they made bread? Show me specifics instead of just saying I disagree with what you believe.

I want to believe that Adam and Eve were real, but I can't prove that they are not a myth put in the historical core. I see that myths get the details wrong, but I don't see the details wrong in this story. It is an indication, but not proof.

I ask again, tell me exactly what I said that twists scripture.

 

[outhouse]

and find a historical core .

You did not find anything.

You think you did, but you 100% remain factually unsubstantiated.

 

[outhouse]

What part did I pervert?

.

All of it.


You ruin it, by trying to shove mythology into reality.



Authors wrote and redacted mythology, in this case there is Mesopotamian influence, but since you don't follow what is known and make it up, I would not expect you to post anything credible.

 

[Thief]

I like Genesis....it's so easy to understand.
It's wonderful in context and meaning.

 

[Alceste]

I just finished reading all 169 pages of this thread, and I reckon nobody gave this answer yet: Nope.

 

[outhouse]

I just finished reading all 169 pages of this thread, and I reckon nobody gave this answer yet: Nope.

:sorry1:

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.

I think the literalist ignorance is at the heart of length here.


and

What do you think.

Was our only qualifier LOL

 

[greentwiga]

You did not find anything.

You think you did, but you 100% remain factually unsubstantiated.

I posted that the Bible said there were 4 rivers coming out of Eden, two of which were the Tigris and Euphrates. Is that what the Bible says?

I posted that Adam and Eve made clothes out of fig leaves. Is that what it says?

I posted that Adam was cursed to eat bread by the sweat of his brow. Does the Bible say that? Historically and scientifically wheat is used to make bread. Lentils, peas, and Chickpeas don't have gluten and can't be made into bread. Is there a problem with associating wheat with bread?

I studied the scientific journals and saw that wheat can't grow below the 200 mm isohyut line and figs below the 25mm isohyut line. Is that right or wrong?

Also from my studies, the two plants don't grow high in the mountains, but just in the foothills, mainly below the 2,000 meter line. Wild Figs never made it over the Taurus/AntiTaurus mountains into Central Turkey on their own. Are these facts twisted?

Putting those scientific facts together, the location of the Tigris and Euphrates with the northern and southern bounderies of the wild wheat and wild fig leaves a relatively small diamond shaped region. Is this wrong?

In the center of the region is one mountain, Karacadag. Scientists say wheat grows so thick that an ancient harvester could harvest enough wheat in 2 weeks to feed a family for a year. It is also the only mountain in that area that can be said to feed four rivers from its snow pack. Is there another mountain in that area that fits the Biblical description?

Did not Heun and all, from their scientific study of the DNA of wheat state that wheat was domesticated at or very near Karacadag?

Show me what I twisted.

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

So many things don't add up in Genesis...I see Genesis as religious poetry, but some Christians...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?

Ham in Answers in Genesis, an org devoted to the homeschooling movement, is quite correct to suspect Christian theology would be in serious trouble were Genesis texts to founder. New Testament dependence is revealed for instance, where Jesus tells his disciples, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt. 24:37).

Intelligent Christians (and the term is not an oxymoron) have attempted to quit the war, and no longer defend literal interpretations of everything in the bible. Christians are committed to upholding the sanctity of their texts, however, so they “rescue” Genesis by declaring it allegorical. The problem is that early Christians didn’t view it as allegorical. Those who insist on fidelity to text as written never stop pointing this out, declaring the message of their “liberal brethren” effectively in a state of deviation or outright apostasy. Fundamentalist churches within the USA are thriving while mainline institutions wither. In the world at large, Anglicans still do fine in Africa—by breaking with the Church of England on women & gay doctrine and other issues, however.

Yet atheist and humanist organizations only have so much traction. I hate to say it, but rational philosophies require science backgrounds and history of fairly high IQ scores to comprehend, offering as much pessimism as promise from a psychological standpoint. They treat their opposition with an attitude of smug, self-assured arrogance as though politics don't figure in the outcomes of debate. Evangelism appeals to everyone who wants comfort in a troubled world. Herding humanists remains worse than its corresponding feline task and the science-based orgs are not nearly as good at outreach as evangelists are. In the end, it may not matter if Dawkins is right; his camp consistently loses in U.S. state legislatures and turns to the courts to keep evolution in public schools.

 

[Aman777]

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.

Dear Didymus, It matters little what money seekers think but much more what is actually written which agrees with every other discovered Truth. The Sun was created after the plants of Adam's world grew. Plants grew on the 3rd Day Gen 1:12 and the Sun wasn't formed until the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 Since Jesus provides the light of Heaven, Rev 21:23 it wasn't hard for Him to provide the light of Adam's world which had NO Sun, Moon, nor Stars.

Adam's world was much smaller than our Cosmos, and surrounded by a firmament or boundary, which protected it from the water into which it was placed. Adam's world was made the 2nd Day Gen 1:6-8 and our Cosmos was NOT made until the 3rd Day, Gen 2:4 the SAME Day Adam's Earth was made. Gen 1:9-10 Adam's world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood. Isaiah 24:19 Scripture could NOT have been speaking of our world since our Earth is covered with water, but our Earth is a Rock, which doesn't dissolve in water. Our world will be burned. ll Peter 3:7

Genesis is True, Scripturally, Scientifically, and Historically IF you have the proper interpretation. The Supreme Intelligence of Creation is the Author so don't expect God's Truth to agree with a 3k year old goatherder's Theology, which does NOT agree with what is actually written, in any way. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[outhouse]

Putting those scientific facts together

Does not make known mythology correct. You also tell one side of the story.


And you are stretching any so called fact.

Historically and scientifically wheat is used to make bread

All Israelites ate bread, in all locations.

They ate bread in the cities and villages where the book was compiled from many different traditions, and took hundreds of year to come into its final form you are failing to dissect.

the location of the Tigris and Euphrates with the northern and southern bounderies of the wild wheat

Not truthful.

Who said anything about wild wheat? Agriculture has been around for about 10,000 years before this book was written.

There is no mention of wild wheat

And there is FACTUALLY NO connection of any kind to any part of the cultures from this period in any part of the Genesis.

In the center of the region is one mountain, Karacadag.

And the four rivers in the mythology does not exist there in any way.

Not even one river mentioned in the mythology exist there.



You also have no made any connection to ancient people who first domesticated wheat and harvested it, and how their oral traditions survived


Your missing 10,000 years of history required to make your laughable guesses even plausible.

 

[outhouse]

Show me what I twisted.

Humans factually evolved.


They FACTUALLY did not originate from the location you have chosen.


They are not known as the first location of people in the area.


Explain Gobekli Tepe going back 13,500 years, not in your location.


Why is their no evidence at all of anything that old there?


I know the nut job who started all this nonsense of karsag and his failed work trying to set up tourism to earn a living, his so called laughable expeditions and unsubstantiated claims.

I believe the oldest building in karsag is reported to be dated earlier then 11000 years old. And is factually not the oldest nor the first location of settlements. It is one of many.

His wiki page has been taken down for fraudulent sources.

 

[greentwiga]

Humans factually evolved.


They FACTUALLY did not originate from the location you have chosen.


They are not known as the first location of people in the area.


Explain Gobekli Tepe going back 13,500 years, not in your location.


Why is their no evidence at all of anything that old there?


I know the nut job who started all this nonsense of karsag and his failed work trying to set up tourism to earn a living, his so called laughable expeditions and unsubstantiated claims.

I believe the oldest building in karsag is reported to be dated earlier then 11000 years old. And is factually not the oldest nor the first location of settlements. It is one of many.

His wiki page has been taken down for fraudulent sources.

Very good. Humans originated in East or Southern Africa to the best of our knowledge. If Adam and Eve are traceable to SE Turkey about 9,000 BC, then The Adam of Gen 1 (which refers to both male(s) and female(s)) must be a separate event. It is just our interpretation that make the two refer to the same person. In Gen 2:4, the Bible indicates that there might be many generations between Gen 1 and Gen 2. Thus I don't have a single objection to what you say, and I still stand by my statements.

 

[outhouse]

If Adam and Eve are traceable to SE Turkey about 9,000 BC

STOP do not pass go.


They are factually not traceable There is your huge problem.

and I still stand by my statements.

You can stand by a pile of garbage, but don't try and tell me it does not stink.

 

[Ouroboros]

Very good. Humans originated in East or Southern Africa to the best of our knowledge. If Adam and Eve are traceable to SE Turkey about 9,000 BC, then The Adam of Gen 1 (which refers to both male(s) and female(s)) must be a separate event. It is just our interpretation that make the two refer to the same person. In Gen 2:4, the Bible indicates that there might be many generations between Gen 1 and Gen 2. Thus I don't have a single objection to what you say, and I still stand by my statements.

Reference to a scientific paper showing this. You're saying with confidence and without doubt that A&E have been traced to SE Turkey about 9,000 BC. I'd like the references for the who, how, what, where, when for the scientific research.