Colt
Well-Known Member
Mainly the characters. It’s about an age before institutions for the criminally insane!
-
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!
Got doubts about Genesis?
- Thread starter danieldemol
- Start date
rational experiences
Veteran Member
As any human can't talk about human genesis unless a whole human not a humans science topic genesis exists.
Science ignored the natural rights of first observation the natural one body of anything.
Same behaviour today. Chosen cult group versus natural life behaviours.
Who remove themselves into the cult group to try to enforce it upon everyone else. In secrecy and by being rich. Is the warning.
Incorrect human self given evilly appropriation of unnatural human science machine choices.
Who try to coerce beliefs about theisms in the public.
Why it's not science.
Human theism belief is first.
Science the practice human controlled machine building. Cosmic law machines position is deep inside earths mass. Cold metal once a melt in mass.
How time shift was first owned by the machine and not the reaction.
Theory said men virtually took the machines metal design out of the heavens then earth manifested it at his side.
In thesis stating no living one woman human as equals answer to the man of science.
It's why he evilly abused the human woman's mutual life forever after. Women having to fight for women's rights themselves.
It's why man the adult portrayed an adult woman and the man as a baby as holy life. Knowing how evil he was as the God theist.man adult.
Science ignored the natural rights of first observation the natural one body of anything.
Same behaviour today. Chosen cult group versus natural life behaviours.
Who remove themselves into the cult group to try to enforce it upon everyone else. In secrecy and by being rich. Is the warning.
Incorrect human self given evilly appropriation of unnatural human science machine choices.
Who try to coerce beliefs about theisms in the public.
Why it's not science.
Human theism belief is first.
Science the practice human controlled machine building. Cosmic law machines position is deep inside earths mass. Cold metal once a melt in mass.
How time shift was first owned by the machine and not the reaction.
Theory said men virtually took the machines metal design out of the heavens then earth manifested it at his side.
In thesis stating no living one woman human as equals answer to the man of science.
It's why he evilly abused the human woman's mutual life forever after. Women having to fight for women's rights themselves.
It's why man the adult portrayed an adult woman and the man as a baby as holy life. Knowing how evil he was as the God theist.man adult.
Even if that were a true story it wouldn't help us know how we went wrong with science.
In my opinion.
I remember the first time I read Aesop's stories, the book was titled "Aesop's fables" and it was sold in the fiction section.
The author/(s) of Genesis did not entitle it a fable, nor did they sell it as fiction, nor does it contain words like "sybolically", "likeness", "metaphor" etc etc. Instead they titled it Genesis (origin), and it says words to the effect of "God did x, y and z".
It is similar to Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" in the sense that it contains what someone believes about origins. Suppose by some unlikely chance evolution was completely overturned in the future. It wouldn't become correct to claim it was all a metaphor just because the impulse to categorise our steel age ancestors as ignorant simpletons would be erroneous.
Likewise it is not correct to categorise Genesis which contains no indication of being anything other than an origins narrative as metaphor after the fact just because it turned out to be wrong.
In my opinion.
Nope. Only some interpretations of it.
Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth upon nothing.
This seems pretty accurate scientifically, TO ME.
Who would’ve ever conceived this idea 3500 years ago, when it was written? “…upon nothing”?
That idea would have been ridiculed!
And yet, it was right on!
Maybe Genesis is being misinterpreted by most??
This seems pretty accurate scientifically, TO ME.
Who would’ve ever conceived this idea 3500 years ago, when it was written? “…upon nothing”?
That idea would have been ridiculed!
And yet, it was right on!
Maybe Genesis is being misinterpreted by most??
PureX
Veteran Member
I don't think that's extremely unlikely at all. I see no reason why ancient people would be any less skeptical as anyone today might be. They certainly would have been aware that the same story told by two different people would not exactly match. And there is no evidence whatever that anyone was punished for that, or for doubt.
In fact, the way those stories were use in their time was more performative, than literal. They were intended to be used as the instigation for maintaining an state of awe, and mystery, and inexplicability among the listeners. To keep them in mind of the fact that their God was God, and was not subject to the understanding, whims, or will of man (as many other gods of the day, were).
No, they stoned people for actually breaking their laws. Not for being confused by a religious story. We kill people today for committing murder, not for breaking a 'holy commandment'. You are just choosing to conflate the two because it suits your bias.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Just a little familiarity with literary genres might help avoid a few basic errors of interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The idea of the sun being created on the fourth day and even the six days of creation could be explained with Einstein's Theory of Relativity, where time and space are dependent on one's frame of reference.
In the twin paradox, which is a teaching tool in Physics for Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, the moving twin will age slower than his twin brother who is stationary. Each twin's clock moves at a different rate due to relativistic affects; which impact space and time, caused by motion; velocity. This was first proven in the lab in particle accelerators where particles with half lives, in motion, would change their half life; clocks slowed.
For the six days of creation to be valid it would need to be relative to God's frame of reference; moving twin, and not the earth's frame; stationary twin. God would need to be very close to the speed of light; energy/matter transition of the BB. God's clock would be moving very slow by our reference. But in God's reference things would move very fast; 6 days equals 13 billion years. Atheism is still stuck using 18th century physics and needs to update to at least the 20th century.
The mistake often made by atheist is to assume earth days, when Genesis speaks about days. Physics can show that the universe is over 13 billions years old, and earth and therefore earth days do not even appear until about 8 billion years after the BB.
The only reference that was in the universe when the universe first appears; pre Big Bang, has all the matter of the universe as a point; singularity. If we apply Einstein's theory of General Relativity, which is about gravity, this reference would have time is almost stopped. Why wouldn't God continue to use that original reference; stopped clock of the singularity and the moving twin of the inflation period through the entire creation? Why perform for the atheists using the pre-Einstein science bias? The latter sounds more like something the talking Serpent would teach. Science through Einstein gave science a tool to understand the six God reference days of Genesis.
In terms of Adam and Eve, the most used Atheist argument that dismisses these claims are connected to DNA evidence and how human DNA can be traced back to over a million years, and then even further back to ape-like species. So how can Adam and Eve be the first humans, but only be 6000 years old?
Putting Einstein's Relativity aside, the Political Left has indirectly explained this with their concept of genders. If DNA is what makes us human, DNA is also what defines our sex. Sex had been defined by DNA for 100's of millions of years. There is male and female DNA. The X and Y chromosomes are very clear. But according to the transgender religion of Liberalism, gender is is not defined by our DNA. In other words, it has to do with willpower and choice; brain, and is not a default setting defined by the male or female DNA. It comes from psychological sources; will and choice.
If we apply this to Adam and Eve, they had human DNA, 6000 year ago, but they also had a brain update with the will and choice, to be something different from the classic pre-human, who lived by natural human instinct for over million years. Their formation, as the first modern humans, had to do with a change within their brain/minds and the will and choice to be something closer to what we call modern human. Instead of gender choice it was more a choice to be a more modern human species; civilization.
This was assisted by the invention of written language about 6000 years ago. Science can show that the first alphabets appear in that time frame. Writing language was key since it allowed knowledge to persist; carved in stone, against the natural processes of the natural brain which forward integrates memory. Spoken language will embellish and forget over time; stories grow. Persistence of knowledge via reading written knowledge, can dam the processes of the natural brain. The result was new side streams appears in the neural flow for the modern human ego to appear and persist. Adam was formed from the dust of the earth; stone dust writing/carving on stone tablets, with these magical writings altering/repressing his brain.
The fall of man was due to writing down knowledge of good and evil. Once carved into stone, these non changing laws would become more and more repressive over time, since they would fight the natural brain and not keep up with natural change of forward integration; death appears.
The Serpent is a cold blooded animal. He is connected to the cold blooded aspects of instinct; impulse without warmth or empathy; war. If the environment is warm the serpent can warm up and be working on all cylinders. But with repressive law that outlives is usefulness, humans hearts grow cold and human become unnatural; cold serpent is reduced to the lowest denominator.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Works for me.
Furthermore, the Tanakh is not, and it never claimed to be, a Mexican cookbook. Both statements are equally true and equally irrelevant.
The Tanakh is, however, a multifaceted, evolved collection laced with etiological tales and myths. When it speaks of six days of creation it almost certainly intends to convey six days of creation. When it speaks of creating lights in the expanse of the sky on the fourth day, it almost certainly intends to convey the creation of lights in the sky on the fourth day. In both cases, the overarching intent was to to provide a monotheistic reframing of ANE cosmology.
Those who appeal to metaphor, Einstein's theory of relativity, or other such rationalizations are doing little more than assuaging their discomfort with the text.
The reason that the Tanakh is neither a science book nor a Mexican cookbook is pretty easy to fathom; its authors and redactors had no knowledge of modern science or Mexican cuisine -- a fact that renders the text no less remarkable.
That's a good one. Religious apologetics is where faith meets creativity. Yeah, frame of reference is important. If a prophecy states that a bird would ascend at noon as a sign of something happening, and it happens when a bird actually died and fell out of the midnight sky, one can see that prophecy is fulfilled there simply by noting that on the opposite side of the world, that direction is up, and it is noon.
And yet more apologist gymnastics. If up can be down and noon midnight, then a day doesn't need to be a day if it becomes inconvenient. The mistake was made by the theistic mythmakers, and now it is understood to be a mistake, so let's sanitize it, because gods don't make mistakes, right?
We know for certain that a literal day was meant two ways. First each of these days include a sunset and a sunrise, which tells us that we are discussing an astronomical event, the earth's daily rotation on its axis.
Moreover, we have the seventh day, the Sabbath, the DAY of rest, the observance of which was a commandment. Have you ever wondered why that is there, and why this creation story has a seven-day timeline, when others do not? Have you ever wondered why there would be a story that depicts an omnipotent deity as needing six days to build the world or a day of rest? Doesn't that make him seem less than omnipotent?
This says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them where they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose. A new work ethic was necessary to accommodate the need for people to travel to and from a temple and stay for services to bring tithes to the now full-time, professional priesthood. Whereas once it was unacceptable to take a day off for anything less than illness, it now was necessary to make the opposite true: It's a sin to not do that. Put down that plowshare and shepherd's hook one day a week and take the family to synagogue, since it can't come to you.
Sometimes a day is just a day. Usually, in fact.
And why a week? Three natural cycles are the 24-hour day, the 29.5-day month, and the 365.25-day year. Daily trips to the temple don't make sense, and monthly and yearly were too far apart, so a new unit was coined for this purpose of tithing every seven days. And these are literal days.
This one is pretty good, too. Why wouldn't God use the concepts of general relativity with his creations, who has no idea where the rain came from?
You're going to DNA now? That's pretty risky. Eve was a clone. Please explain again how she was phenotypically different from Adam and able to reproduce with him.
Also, if we want to bring modern science into the mix, Jesus was haploid, born of parthenogenesis, like bees (source): "In the honeybee, Apis mellifera, unfertilized eggs normally develop into haploid males by arrhenotokous parthenogenesis. Unfertilized eggs are produced by queens for the production of males and also by unmated queenless workers whose eggs also produce functional males."
But aside from the title "Aesop's fables" is there anything in the body of the stories that indicates they are not meant to be taken literally? Does Aesop use words like "sybolically", "likeness", "metaphor"?
I believe Aesop was using those stories to convey to the reader things that he believed to be true. I believe the creators to the Genesis creation story likewise were trying to convey to their audience things they believed to be true. But that does not mean they literally believed in a talking snake and magical fruit. They did perhaps believe in the existence of God, that God created the world and humans, had a special relationship to humans etc. And I believe they used this story to convey those ideas much like Aesop used a rabbit and a turtle.
btw, ever read Gulliver's Travels? No where in that book is there any indication that it was not intended to be taken as a truthful account, quite the contrary. "Gulliver" insists that his account is accurate and criticizes similar travel books that unlike his account exaggerate their stories. The book was even originally published under the name of "Lemuel Gulliver".
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Genesis is a Jewish scripture, so it should be assessed from a Jewish context. Traditionally, in Judaism, children begin their education at 3 years old. So, the Genesis account should be read as if it was directed to a very young child. Looked at from this perspective, the creation account is obviously going to be vastly over simplified, and the story would be told in a way to answer the young child's questions:
- Where did the earth and heavens come from?
- In the beginning God created heaven and earth
- Why do we rest on the 7th day?
- Because God rested on the seventh day?
- At night, sometimes Mommy and Daddy "wrestle" with each other and it wakes me up? (Primitve people didn't have privacy)
- Man and women "cleave" to each other in order to make babies
- God commanded us to do this
- When the baby comes why is Mommy screaming, why is there blood, is Mommy dying?
- Well, you see there was a rule, and the first woman broke the rule, and there was a serpent, and a tree, etc...
Are all religious texts (or strictly oral traditions, for that matter) of some literary genre? Do all religious texts fall under the same genre? What genre is that?
Is it your position that the book of Genesis in the Hebrew Tanakh is a literary work as opposed to a sacred religious scripture? Is sacred religious scripture a literary genre? If it is a literary genre, does it fall under fiction or non-fiction?
You have provided a link that address broadly, creation myths. Is it your position that the creation account in the Book of Genesis is myth. Is it equivalent to all other creation myths? Are all myths the product of human authors, simply reflecting the authors ideas and intent?
Genesis is a Jewish scripture, so it should be assessed from a Jewish context. Traditionally, in Judaism, children begin their education at 3 years old. So, the Genesis account should be read as if it was directed to a very young child. Looked at from this perspective, the creation account is obviously going to be vastly over simplified, and the story would be told in a way to answer the young child's questions:
- Where did the earth and heavens come from?
- In the beginning God created heaven and earth
- Why do we rest on the 7th day?
- Because God rested on the seventh day?
- At night, sometimes Mommy and Daddy "wrestle" with each other and it wakes me up? (Primitve people didn't have privacy)
- Man and women "cleave" to each other in order to make babies
- God commanded us to do this
- When the baby comes why is Mommy screaming, why is there blood, is Mommy dying?
- Well, you see there was a rule, and the first woman broke the rule, and there was a serpent, and a tree, etc...
The Tanakh is a child's primer? Really?
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The first three chapters, yes. Also the story of the flood. The story of cain and abel is perhaps for older children, teaching the lesson not to hurt others.
It is written to Jews. The rest of us are peeking in.
This matters, because the Jews have the longest lived peace movement on the planet. Their ancestors have lived as gypsies not for centuries but for millennia. They have survived many attempts to stamp them out. Any time that we wonder if the world could exist without war, we now know that it could.
The features of Genesis are: a world before war, a world filled with war, a world destroyed by war and a world given to us.
This matters, because the Jews have the longest lived peace movement on the planet. Their ancestors have lived as gypsies not for centuries but for millennia. They have survived many attempts to stamp them out. Any time that we wonder if the world could exist without war, we now know that it could.
The features of Genesis are: a world before war, a world filled with war, a world destroyed by war and a world given to us.
I don't study Biblical mythology. It has no presence or part to play in my way of life or traditions. As such, I don't feel there's anything for me to doubt. I regard it as a collection of sacred stories deemed very important by many world religions. Beyond that, I don't really have many thoughts on it (just as most of you reading this probably have no thoughts on the sacred lore of the Four Elements).
Is there some hidden assumption here about how I'm supposed to think about the Bible I'm not processing?
Is there some hidden assumption here about how I'm supposed to think about the Bible I'm not processing?