• 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?

rational experiences

Veteran 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.
Self Idolating men.

No biology existed.

None of the types of observations you infer existed either. To claim my cosmic thesis correct. As a human who observes. By bible terms.

How do you thesis not using observation of a human man only?

In your thoughts men already stated to get the science machine he had to shift cosmic law by dusts. Yet by Alchemy gain of hot melt to cold melt to gain machine.

Melted science temple stone steps your proof you lied. Of course you would have witnessed earths even ing sky come alight. All life changed daily. You saw it change you say spirit images seen as attacked biology was leaving.

If a human said non observed. When the sun lit earth first the O rock existed it's heavens existed. Proven as light is only on one side. Same gases however as one heavens..

Every state gets recorded becomes visionary. You're just the theist. A human.

You say when reactive heavens was massing at ground state by attack sun earth was flooding too. To save earths mass.

Water gained inside fused rock it's proof. Earths history not yours.

After that situation of mass body water shifting suddenly life existed. As it came out of the eternal body. Via pressurised changes. Caused On creations side.

Heavens mass | | eternal mass. One against the other.

¶space ¶ | eternal. Versus each type.

Now if creation remained in just space as space plus mass no life would even exist.

The heavens filled in the divide by gas mass. It pushed into eternal as a reacting mass accumulation after being thin non alight gases | |>>>>>>
So eternal when pressure changed <<<<<<< sent spirit out of its body.

As eternal is a being inside eternal mass. Language spirits is what is sung out as it could not be held.

Vibrational changes caused it. So G O D we said was to blame for the spirits release. We did not want to leave the eternal. We were forced to as the eternal body had created creation.

Our parents memory taught us our life is karmic. We inherited what we never wanted. Life.

It's why the very first man theoried to shift time mass and biology. The very reason why.

Seeing civilisation statuses never once existed. To accept life as a human and to live that life in just nature.

It makes common sense how a spirit being became a human. As burnt eternal had cooled. We inherited highest form water oxygen as biological status only. Our new dominion.

As when you try to thesis single cells became the billions of nature's population is ludicrous.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
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?


Firstly, I’m not a Bible scholar. I have no Hebrew and no Greek. I haven’t read every book in the Bible, nor do I ever expect to do so; life is too short to read Leviticus. There are people on this forum far better qualified than I am to answer your questions from theological, historical and literary perspectives. So bear in mind my answers are based on my own limited understanding;

Of course all religious texts are also works of literature, and therefore can be categorised according to genre. Whatever else it may be, The Bible is one of the world’s great literary compendia. We are fortunate as English speakers, to have access in the King James Version, to a masterpiece of the translator’s art. It’s influence on the history of English literature, songwriting, art and culture is incalculable. Here’s a little exercise for you; read Ecclesiastes and see how many cultural references you can spot, starting with one of Pete Seeger’s best known lyrics.

There are many literary genres in the Bible. Of course Genesis is a creation myth, and of course it was written by humans several centuries ago. As the poetry of The Psalms were written by humans, as the history of Kings was written by humans, and as the Gospels were written by humans. Sacred scripture or not - and those are your words here, so I respectfully suggest you ask yourself what you mean by them - all the books in The Bible are works of literature. As are the Upanishads, The Baghavad Gita, The Dhammapada and the Tibetan Book of the Dead, to name a few religious texts I’m at least partially familiar with.

The question a reader of any religious text ought perhaps to ask themself is not “Is this the literal truth”, but rather, “What truths are contained here”? Of course, you will not be inclined to ask the right questions if you have approached these works intent only on pouring scorn on them, as the OP appears to have done. But no matter; get yourself a King James Bible, I recommend the Oxford World Classics edition. Read the Preface and the Introduction. Read the original 17th Century introduction entitled ‘The Translators to the the Reader’, and read The Epistle Dedicatory. Then you will have some idea of what it is you hold in your hands, and what it’s religious, literary and historical significance over the centuries has been and continues to be.

Incidentally, as far as I am aware, there is only one book in The Bible (certainly only one in the New Testament) which purports to be revealed, in the sense of having been dictated to it’s author directly from a heavenly authority; that book is Revelation - complex, puzzling, visionary, loaded with astonishing poetic imagery to rival anything written by Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Keats or Shelley.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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".
Was Gulliver's travels originally sold as fiction and/or satire?

If so you have a clear indication it is not believed to be true by its author.

If not you have evidence that its author was trying to pass a lie as truth.

Whilst it is not impossible that Genesis was a lie being passed off as truth, that does little to reduce my doubt about the divine guidance of it's author/(s)

In my opinion.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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?
Well perhaps you didn't have a certain someone mentioned in the OP trying to sell you their sacred mythology, but I did.

And sure, if no one was trying to sell the alleged truth of it to me I probably wouldn't give it any more thought than I've given the sacred lore of the Four Elements. But I think that's what you do when you try to convince someone of a position - you unintentionally invite them to doubt it where they perhaps otherwise wouldn't have spared it a passing thought.

In my opinion.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Of course, you will not be inclined to ask the right questions if you have approached these works intent only on pouring scorn on them, as the OP appears to have done.
Ah, ad-hominem in lieu of addressing the arguments - the oldest apologist trick in the book and a subconscious admission of defeat.

In my opinion.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Ah, ad-hominem in lieu of addressing the arguments - the oldest apologist trick in the book and a subconscious admission of defeat.

In my opinion.


Wasn’t I clear? I thought I explained my problem with the premise of your OP, which btw you have acknowledged elsewhere, was hardly undertaken in good faith. To summarise; if you have only the scantest awareness of what it is you are taking aim at, you will inevitably miss the target.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wasn’t I clear? I thought I explained my problem with the premise of your OP, which btw you have acknowledged elsewhere, was hardly undertaken in good faith. To summarise; if you have only the scantest awareness of what it is you are taking aim at, you will inevitably miss the target.
Where have I acknowledged that it was hardly undertaken in good faith?
Tsk tsk.
In my opinion.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
if you have only the scantest awareness of what it is you are taking aim at, you will inevitably miss the target.
As for this, either demonstrate you have a greater awareness or otherwise the words - physician heal thyself - come to mind.
In my opinion.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Well perhaps you didn't have a certain someone mentioned in the OP trying to sell you their sacred mythology, but I did.

And sure, if no one was trying to sell the alleged truth of it to me I probably wouldn't give it any more thought than I've given the sacred lore of the Four Elements. But I think that's what you do when you try to convince someone of a position - you unintentionally invite them to doubt it where they perhaps otherwise wouldn't have spared it a passing thought.

In my opinion.


Where have I acknowledged that it was hardly undertaken in good faith?
Tsk tsk.
In my opinion.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
As for this, either demonstrate you have a greater awareness or otherwise the words - physician heal thyself - come to mind.
In my opinion.


See post #62, where I stated my position as clearly as I could.

Since I have neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in pointless circuitous arguments that lead nowhere, I have nothing to add.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well perhaps you didn't have a certain someone mentioned in the OP trying to sell you their sacred mythology, but I did.

And sure, if no one was trying to sell the alleged truth of it to me I probably wouldn't give it any more thought than I've given the sacred lore of the Four Elements. But I think that's what you do when you try to convince someone of a position - you unintentionally invite them to doubt it where they perhaps otherwise wouldn't have spared it a passing thought.

In my opinion.
If you see that as an admission of bad faith on my part you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

In my opinion.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
Its been a little while since we re-visited the low hanging fruits of genesis, so at the request of @setarcos I intitiated this thread.

So what are your doubts about Genesis?

Personally mine would be the amount of non-scientific information in it. They would include but not be limited to the sun being created on the fourth day Genesis 1:14-19 (inclusive), or a talking Serpent Genesis 3:1 and others.

In my opinion
I read it as a myth (or a collection of myths).
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
See post #62, where I stated my position as clearly as I could.

Since I have neither the time nor the inclination to become involved in pointless circuitous arguments that lead nowhere, I have nothing to add.
Post #62 does not demonstrate greater awareness of Genesis, it simply disparages people for being prepared to ask what is false in Genesis without even saying why that isn't a valid response to someone trying to sell it as divinely authored.
In my opinion.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Humans asked are we divine?

As humans we are born by sex.

Yet if you ask were our parents divine? It owns just a memory. A story.

Stories don't own the subject.

So egotists have a human condition. They tell stories. Yet as the story is about huge powers suddenly the thinker imposes it gives them status.

Yet you are just a mutual human.

Was humans warning...you aren't any God.

Mass and burning in space has nothing to do with any human.

However if you intend on doing a small version about what you theory upon...you build a machine and do a reaction

Yet must own it physically to physically change it as if you human are acting like a God.

Our teaching....human.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Post #62 does not demonstrate greater awareness of Genesis, it simply disparages people for being prepared to ask what is false in Genesis without even saying why that isn't a valid response to someone trying to sell it as divinely authored.
In my opinion.


I don’t claim greater awareness.

I do suggest there may be value in asking “What can a modern reader learn from Genesis?” rather than the entirely negative “What is false in Genesis?”

In this instance a negative approach can only yield negative results, such as the ludicrous contention that a work of ancient literature is invalidated by it’s failure to meet 21st century scientific standards - a claim no reasonable person would ever make on it’s behalf.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If I can read then I know I was taught as I didn't know how.

So it's fake. Introduced.

Causing you to assess as a human thinking....
looking back asking why.

And you read and it says dont look back.

Woman warnings

Men themed space a womb theme maths science. Women talk...science. Yet guess what all you owned was your own human bio life

Science is in fact fake. Intentions all human by human choice.

The teaching no man is God.

The teaching that stated earths sun law kept earths mass sealed by a caused flood first.

Therefore men ask...can asteroids flood earth again with ice mass?

As earth was present.
Earth owned a thin stretched cold gas heavens not burning.

As the body types God. History of evolving Cooling of a body type in space. Just a one of...just earth.

So I heard our native American Indian father say earth...is special.

As it is unique in space.

How many of you science men honour that review?

Pretty sad really.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Was Gulliver's travels originally sold as fiction and/or satire?

If so you have a clear indication it is not believed to be true by its author.

If not you have evidence that its author was trying to pass a lie as truth.
I think that is the point. You don't need to label something satire in order for it to be satire. (In fact there has been a U.S. supreme court case that confirms that.) And neither do you need to label something as mythology or allegory in order for it to be that.

This is just a bit of trivia that I find entertaining. But the fact is that if you got a first edition of "Gulliver's Travels" the title would not be "Gulliver's Travels" and the author would not be "Johnathan Swift". No. The title of the book would have been "Travels into several Remote Nations of the World" and the author would be listed as "Lemuel Gulliver". And the book of course is written in the first person from the point of view of Lemuel Gulliver. No mention of anyone named Swift anywhere.
title-page-from-the-first-edition-of-gulliver-s-travel-in-1726_u-l-q1ktc0qfwy11.jpg


Nevertheless, the book is fiction, satire. And the readers would have realized that, even in 1726.

Whilst it is not impossible that Genesis was a lie being passed off as truth, that does little to reduce my doubt about the divine guidance of it's author/(s)

In my opinion.
How people who "read" the "first edition" of Genesis understood it (obviously an oral tradition) is less certain. But it is my opinion (fwiw) that they also probably understood it for what it was. This was a time long before newspapers, or textbooks or peer reviewed journals. Maybe some believed it was literal truth, perhaps children. But I think most people were smarter than that.

Nevertheless, I think the story is a myth, a story told with the intention to convey something the story creators/tellers considered truth, but not necessarily literal factual details of a historic event.

That does not mean that you have to believe the things the story is trying to convey. I don't. I don't believe in "God", or "creation" or "sin". I don't need to agree in order to understand what they are saying.
 
Last edited:

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don’t claim greater awareness.
In that case your words, "if you have only the scantest awareness of what it is you are taking aim at, you will inevitably miss the target" are irrelevant to me, since if your awareness is no greater than mine you are not in a position to judge me as having either scant awareness *or* missing the target.

I do suggest there may be value in asking “What can a modern reader learn from Genesis?” rather than the entirely negative “What is false in Genesis?”

In this instance a negative approach can only yield negative results, such as the ludicrous contention that a work of ancient literature is invalidated by it’s failure to meet 21st century scientific standards - a claim no reasonable person would ever make on it’s behalf.
It is not invalidated as a human work of ancient literature, and if i was being asked to assess it as that it would be entirely relevant to ask that question.

But I wasn't asked to assess it as a human work of ancient literature, I was asked concerning my doubts about it as a *divinely authored* text, and in such a context assessing where it fails to meet the criteria of a divinely authored text is both relevant and appropriate.

In my opinion.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I think that is the point. You don't need to label something satire in order for it to be satire. (In fact there has been a U.S. supreme court case that confirms that.) And neither do you need to label something as mythology or allegory in order for it to be that.

This is just a bit of trivia that I find entertaining. But the fact is that if you got a first edition of "Gulliver's Travels" the title would not be "Gulliver's Travels" and the author would not be "Johnathan Swift". No. The title of the book would have been "Travels into several Remote Nations of the World" and the author would be listed as "Lemuel Gulliver". And the book of course is written in the first person from the point of view of Lemuel Gulliver. No mention of anyone named Swift anywhere.
title-page-from-the-first-edition-of-gulliver-s-travel-in-1726_u-l-q1ktc0qfwy11.jpg


Nevertheless, the book is fiction, satire. And the readers would have realized that, even in 1726.
It is a court decision i personally happen to disagree with, but regardless of that, we have the reception on record of Gulliver's Travels being received as satire. So there is obvious indication that this is not a statement of belief.

We do not have record of how Genesis was received amongst the society that it was authored in as far as I'm aware. So there is no indication that it was received as metaphor.

How people who "read" the "first edition" of Genesis understood it (obviously an oral tradition) is less certain. But it is my opinion (fwiw) that they also probably understood it for what it was. This was a time long before newspapers, or textbooks or peer reviewed journals. Maybe some believed it was literal truth, perhaps children. But I think most people were smarter than that.

Nevertheless, I think the story is a myth, a story told with the intention to convey something the story creators/tellers considered truth, but not necessarily literal factual details of a historic event.

That does not mean that you have to believe the things the story is trying to convey. I don't. I don't believe in "God", or "creation" or "sin". I don't need to agree in order to understand what they are saying.
Ok, but why don't you regard "God" and "creation" and "sin" as metaphors? Could it be that you have received a post hoc rationalised interpretation of it from Christian culture which has cherry picked which aspects of what appears to be a statement of beliefs to take at their word and reject which beliefs to take at their word solely on the basis of what fit with the knowledge of a much later time?

I mean, how do you justify not seeing God as a metaphor for the higher self for example. On what basis do you think the author believed in a talking God but not a talking serpent?

In my opinion.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Humans argue. Over the concept observation.

I observe by my thinking.
I observe by seeing.

Therefore the human legally has to be present themselves as scientific advice as legality.

Stated entity to argue position legal law. As any human.

Earth was given that entity by humans.

Fixed planet that had bodily created its own heavens. Legal.

So the theist...just thinking could not legally argue against its position.

Was agreed upon by the many human nations.

Humans animals nature thinking back as three holy types. Lived within holy and oxygenated generated water heavens. Legal.

No argument allowed....we exist with the entity legal named as God. Earth.

No practicing science in legality. As God in the presence of the existing natural bodies was only reacting. Law was earthquakes...carpenter tectonic Inheritor term. Given legal status.

The Inheritor in reactive observations was carpenter tectonic...ice melt saviour water oxygen...oxygenation generated by CH gases body mass above.

As legally taught....a heavens.

No legal position for creation theories.

Illegal review theoried. Legal taught once nature body was giant. As was the animal life. Just beasts before us. They were cold of blood and thick skinned. Legal.

That life as compared to our life was evil. Stated legality.

As we lived in ownership of small celled warm blooded life as bio cell blood bone life. Within holy water heavens. Legality.

A review was stated about our holy heavens genetics support. As a report...a testimony. As said by humans in law.

The legality as a testimony had in fact reviewed the thesis of technology as used and applied by man's own ancient history rich king lord men. The Phi calculators theists.

Therefore it had been accepted before that if everything was only surviving living within holy water heavens now. And died. Legality stated no man is any GOD...in theories.

GOD had however been accepted as the motion of gases in creation to arrive at its natural highest greatest cooled body by type. Flesh of God planet rock. Gas spirit each of in heavens.

Legal explanation G spiral spin movement oO flow motion...cooling.

Had been accepted as the legal explanation. Body type.

The theme we...the parent body of any one by two came from out of the eternal type via GOD in heavens was never argued. As it's only a themed story.

To observe it already existed.

Knowing it was possible for a subject eternal type by thought to own a legal presence and just a thought upon explanation. As it was not science just a humans applied practice of a human only choice. Legal.

Legal status...no argument as you cannot argue a non scientific practice.
 
Top