E Vs C. Really now???

[metis]

There is no absolutes concerning knowledge of what was believed by the authors of all the Bible. There is very good evidence of the evolution of the text of both the Pentateuch and the NT. Well, I believe we can beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence the authors believed what they wrote. I gave some very important key reasons and so far you have ignored them.

Actually I believe Joseph Campbell supports this that in all ancient cultures they developed their oral stories and beliefs and wrote their stories

Actually we do know Gilgamesh the earliest written record of the flood and related stories was most likely oral traditions. Also the content of the Gospels most likely originated from the evolution of a simpler Gospel with additions of handed down oral traditions.

Based at least what you wrote with your last two sentences above, I don't see any difference between you and I at least on these points. Also, I have not avoided trying to deal with your questions, so it seems were at crosshairs.

 

[shunyadragon]

Based at least what you wrote with your last two sentences above, I don't see any difference between you and I at least on these points. Also, I have not avoided trying to deal with your questions, so it seems were at crosshairs.

The question was whether they believed what they wrote as their history and stories including Creation stories.

 

[metis]

The question was whether they believed what they wrote as their history and stories including Creation stories.

And we'll never know the answer to that with any certainty of being correct.

In Judaism, one often hears the adage "...the meaning behind the words", thus basically saying trying to figure out what the author was intending to communicate. Trouble is, it's a VERY imprecise art.

 

[shunyadragon]

And we'll never know the answer to that with any certainty of being correct.

In Judaism, one often hears the adage "...the meaning behind the words", thus basically saying trying to figure out what the author was intending to communicate. Trouble is, it's a VERY imprecise art.

Never know??? Of course in the absolute sense no, but you claimed specifically that those that wrote Genesis and Exodus did not believe it was literally their story and Creation. The history of the scriptures, the traditional view in history pretty much all ancient cultures and primitive cultures today believe their stories are real and history to them. I already acknowledged that over the millennia the scriptures and stories were also interpreted symbolically and anecdotally.

 

[metis]

Of course in the absolute sense no, but you claimed specifically that those that wrote Genesis and Exodus did not believe it was literally their story and Creation.

No, I didn't. What I did say is that some theologians believe that the Creation and Flood narratives may have been authored as a refutation of the polytheistic Babylonian narratives but then later construed as actual history.

 

[metis]

The history of the scriptures, the traditional view in history pretty much all ancient cultures and primitive cultures today believe their stories are real and history to them.

That's not true in many cases either as changing some aspects of an oral teaching may be altered to fit new circumstances. In my Intro to Anthro course, I used a real example of some Bushmen and Mbuti folklore.

Joseph Cambell covers this quite well, imo, and I often repeat a line of his, namely "... and the myth becomes the reality", or words to that effect.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's not true in many cases either as changing some aspects of an oral teaching may be altered to fit new circumstances. In my Intro to Anthro course, I used a real example of some Bushmen and Mbuti folklore.

I believe it is a personal assumption on your part. I will go with the evidence of the history of ancient scriptures and the anthropological work of present-day primitive cultures. It is a matter of documentation that present-day primitive cultures when discovered believe in their stories and Creation story as fact.

Joseph Campbell covers this quite well, imo, and I often repeat a line of his, namely "... and the myth becomes the reality", or words to that effect.

Actually no, Joseph Campbell acknowledges that ancient cultures and the anthropology studies of present-day ancient cultures consider their stories really the stories they believe in.

Simply follow the history of Genesis and Exodus and related literature the facts are clear up until the recent history (17th to 19th centuries) of Judaism, Christianity before and after the time they were recorded in Hebrew, and Islam believes in the lineage of Adam and Eve through Abraham to the lineage of prophets and Messianic figures as Jesus and Mohammed. The belief in a literal flood in various forms as fact occurs throughout history even outside the scriptures. Before the 17th century, there is no literary references that consider Adam and Eve and the Flood as merely myth or legend.

I will go with the evidence and not the opinion.

 

[YmirGF]

Evolution is about MORTALS.

Creationism is about IMMORTALS.

The two aren't comparable.

For Gods' sake!

OK, I feel stupid, when did we discover immortals?

 

[shunyadragon]

OK, I feel stupid, when did we discover immortals?

Nobody discovered the claim of the belief in immortals. The belief in immortals is rooted in the whole history of the myths and legends of humanity in all cultures of the Gods and other immortal figures in myth.

 

[YmirGF]

Nobody discovered the claim of the belief in immortals. The belief in immortals is rooted in the whole history of the myths and legends of humanity in all cultures of the Gods and other immortal figures in myth.

So, the concept of immortals is ephemeral myths with no basis in reality. Good, so far.

 

[shunyadragon]

So, the concept of immortals is ephemeral myths with no basis in reality. Good, so far.

I gave you the objective history of the belief in immortals in cultures in the history of humanity. The belief in immortals more resembles comic book images of today. This does not extend to whether the belief in God is true or not.

 

[YmirGF]

I gave you the objective history of the belief in immortals in cultures in the history of humanity. The belief in immortals more resembles comic book images of today. This does not extend to whether the belief in God is true or not.

Maybe I am missing your point, Shuny, but I'm still waiting for you to tell me something I do not know already.
To be clear, I do not see so-called "creationism" as having virtually any merit of any kind, so to attempt to tie it to immortals is a big fail in my view. Again, if I am missing something salient, let me know.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe I am missing your point, Shuny, but I'm still waiting for you to tell me something I do not know already.
To be clear, I do not see so-called "creationism" as having virtually any merit of any kind, so to attempt to tie it to immortals is a big fail in my view. Again, if I am missing something salient, let me know.

If it is true that I cannot 'tell you something you do not know already.' This is all there is.

 

[metis]

I believe it is a personal assumption on your part. I will go with the evidence of the history of ancient scriptures and the anthropological work of present-day primitive cultures. It is a matter of documentation that present-day primitive cultures when discovered believe in their stories and Creation story as fact.


Actually no, Joseph Campbell acknowledges that ancient cultures and the anthropology studies of present-day ancient cultures consider their stories really the stories they believe in.

Simply follow the history of Genesis and Exodus and related literature the facts are clear up until the recent history (17th to 19th centuries) of Judaism, Christianity before and after the time they were recorded in Hebrew, and Islam believes in the lineage of Adam and Eve through Abraham to the lineage of prophets and Messianic figures as Jesus and Mohammed. The belief in a literal flood in various forms as fact occurs throughout history even outside the scriptures. Before the 17th century, there is no literary references that consider Adam and Eve and the Flood as merely myth or legend.

I will go with the evidence and not the opinion.

The above is just wishful nonsense on your part, plus you misrepresent what Campbell believed and what cultural anthropologists generally know in regards to ancient and even current folklore. We cannot be certain whether the original authors believed they were citing actual history or we responding to counter outside influences. You're simply making up your own supposed evidence that even defies common sense. You are really not dealing within serious theology when you make such assertions minus evidence, whereas I cloak my leanings minus any claim on my part that I must be correct on any assumption that it had to be allegorical.

IOW, we're done.

 

[shunyadragon]

If it is true that I cannot 'tell you something you do not know already.' This is all there is.

The above is just wishful nonsense on your part, plus you misrepresent what Campbell believed and what cultural anthropologists generally know in regards to ancient and even current folklore. We cannot be certain whether the original authors believed they were citing actual history or we responding to counter outside influences. You're simply making up your own supposed evidence that even defies common sense. You are really not dealing within serious theology when you make such assertions minus evidence, whereas I cloak my leanings minus any claim on my part that I must be correct on any assumption that it had to be allegorical.

IOW, we're done.

Simply follow the history of Genesis and Exodus and related literature the facts are clear up until the recent history (17th to 19th centuries) of Judaism, Christianity before and after the time they were recorded in Hebrew, and Islam believes in the lineage of Adam and Eve through Abraham to the lineage of prophets and Messianic figures as Jesus and Mohammed. The belief in a literal flood in various forms as fact occurs throughout history even outside the scriptures. Before the 17th century, there is no literary references that consider Adam and Eve and the Flood as merely myth or legend.

I will go with the evidence and not the opinion.

 

[shunyadragon]

The above is just wishful nonsense on your part, plus you misrepresent what Campbell believed and what cultural anthropologists generally know in regards to ancient and even current folklore. We cannot be certain whether the original authors believed they were citing actual history or we responding to counter outside influences. You're simply making up your own supposed evidence that even defies common sense. You are really not dealing within serious theology when you make such assertions minus evidence, whereas I cloak my leanings minus any claim on my part that I must be correct on any assumption that it had to be allegorical.

IOW, we're done.

The classic example of ancient cultures believing their story, Creation, and the afterlife is in their vast records in tombs and monuments documenting what the believed. Today it can easily not be believed and is considered a myth today, but at the time the Egyptians believed,

Historical lineage of ancestors is critical to all cultures, and all records emphasize Adam and Eve as the first humans and ancestors. Most imortant the lineage of the prophets.

 

[shunyadragon]

And we'll never know the answer to that with any certainty of being correct.

In Judaism, one often hears the adage "...the meaning behind the words", thus basically saying trying to figure out what the author was intending to communicate. Trouble is, it's a VERY imprecise art.

I believe it is worthwhile to cite this evaluation of Genesis Creation. This source does an extensive comparison of the possible intent of the authors with references:

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1191&context=icc_proceedings#:~:text=Therefore%2C%20the%20only%20recognized%20and,be%20understood%20as%20historical%20narrative.

The Genre of Genesis One

David M. Fouts Bryan College

CONCLUSION Genesis 1:1-2:4a best fits within the known biblical genre of historical narrative, and should be taken normally and literally as communicating a very quick and recent creation, consistent with traditional understanding of 6 successive days of 24-hours duration. Seeing Genesis 1:1-2:4a as a Special Creation Genre because of it uniqueness is at least possible, but there is nothing yet discovered that can, by comparison, confirm that possibility. Unless and until such discoveries are made, I believe that prudence dictates that our interpretation of the passage should be constrained by intra-textual, intra-contextual, and intra-cultural studies within the ANE milieu. It therefore should be interpreted within the literary genre of historical narrative.

 

[robmil]

1 Females beget males.
2 Females beget females.
3 The whole population of the world comes through the female.
To put it another way, if there ever was a male, there was a female before him. The female must be antecedent to the male.

The question is not, "How does she reproduce if there are no males?"
The real question is, "If there are no males, who or what, is the ancestor of the female?"
The only logical answer is, "Her ancestor is both male and female!"

This super being must have been able to reproduce itself without sex.
Thus, the woman is, in fact, a degeneration of the original super being. She can reproduce but not without assistance from the male. The male is, in fact, a further degeneration. His function is as a fertiliser only. He is the bottom rung of the devolutionary ladder.

Now, let's have a look at Genesis.

Gen 1.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply#

#God is male and female. The first man is male and female. He is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. These are the Sons of God. They can reproduce without sin. Eve is not formed until Chapter 2.
See John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Gen 6.1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.#

#This encapsulates Gen 2 and 3 into a few sentences.

So, in a nutshell, evolution is not logical and creation texts are distorted to erroneously show that males are the crowning glory of creation.

 

[F1fan]

1 Females beget males.
2 Females beget females.
3 The whole population of the world comes through the female.
To put it another way, if there ever was a male, there was a female before him. The female must be antecedent to the male.

The question is not, "How does she reproduce if there are no males?"
The real question is, "If there are no males, who or what, is the ancestor of the female?"
The only logical answer is, "Her ancestor is both male and female!"

This super being must have been able to reproduce itself without sex.
Thus, the woman is, in fact, a degeneration of the original super being. She can reproduce but not without assistance from the male. The male is, in fact, a further degeneration. His function is as a fertiliser only. He is the bottom rung of the devolutionary ladder.

Now, let's have a look at Genesis.

Gen 1.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply#

#God is male and female. The first man is male and female. He is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. These are the Sons of God. They can reproduce without sin. Eve is not formed until Chapter 2.
See John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Gen 6.1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.#

#This encapsulates Gen 2 and 3 into a few sentences.

So, in a nutshell, evolution is not logical and creation texts are distorted to erroneously show that males are the crowning glory of creation.

Or, you are interpreting the Bible too literally and don’t understand evolution.

 

[exchemist]

1 Females beget males.
2 Females beget females.
3 The whole population of the world comes through the female.
To put it another way, if there ever was a male, there was a female before him. The female must be antecedent to the male.

The question is not, "How does she reproduce if there are no males?"
The real question is, "If there are no males, who or what, is the ancestor of the female?"
The only logical answer is, "Her ancestor is both male and female!"

This super being must have been able to reproduce itself without sex.
Thus, the woman is, in fact, a degeneration of the original super being. She can reproduce but not without assistance from the male. The male is, in fact, a further degeneration. His function is as a fertiliser only. He is the bottom rung of the devolutionary ladder.

Now, let's have a look at Genesis.

Gen 1.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply#

#God is male and female. The first man is male and female. He is commanded to be fruitful and multiply. These are the Sons of God. They can reproduce without sin. Eve is not formed until Chapter 2.
See John 3.9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Gen 6.1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.#

#This encapsulates Gen 2 and 3 into a few sentences.

So, in a nutshell, evolution is not logical and creation texts are distorted to erroneously show that males are the crowning glory of creation.

You seem to have left out asexual reproduction.