Got doubts about Genesis?

[rational experiences]

Theme dusts in cosmic law.

My brother first theists human memories said....visions he gained in brain attack showed earths crystalline faced mass was pressurised and owned a clear cold gas heavens first.

Reason visionary recordings are in star Akashic records. Transmitters. In stars you see earths life recorded images. Visions in the gases as images from earth... it's true.

The truth why...
Earth was changed via star history the fall. Sun blasting all things.

He was a visionary first by his mind brain prickled. Bio chemical altered by mind. He heard Satan snake talking....falling cloud mass causes like a long cloud tunnel funnel.

Old man's science voice.

The theist.
A is double...the the ist.
The satanist man.

Speaking thesis he lied on behalf of two lives...his as the man and woman.

Atheist named an evil thinker. Was always termed criminal by human law. T heist. Meant criminal stealer.... heist. Men in groups..heist.

His owned realisations about his rich man king lord behaviours. Who he taught became a holy advised lord by his say so. So no king in life ruled after him. Rome ruled by governing.

A humans teachings only.

Cosmic womb law the sun converted earths pressurised first natural layered mass. Owning cold seam melt.

Dusts came about via the attack of nuclear sun. Crystal mass converted so did a huge face mass of earths seams convert.

Law of dust was gods only as one earth. Not man.

Evil men wanted you to believe your life was a dust first.

Position why a dust body existed belonged to God...a dust.

So you should realise science of man conned you all.

In cosmic law the theists virtual claim was a human was the hell sun mass first who became gods earth dust after.

Is how evil his thesis is.

So he says thesis...or the thesis...... the s IsIs....an Egyptian lie. Only said it as he claimed he spoke for man and woman's life.

He said...how it became next titled Jesus. By his say so proving he had caused it by technology of Egyptian history.

T...cross calculus addition had been removed +.
He s IsIs...instead of the.
Jesus.

As he coded inferred it. Yet living only in natural laws which were all changed as human life attacked was not Jesus.

So no man is any God by terms science thesis.

Was the teaching.

Mother father human first were not scientists and were first. Lived had babies.

Life attacked by returned ancient man's origin science causes. Heard by living man baby. Stars fall. As he had in a past a long time ago destroyed all life on origin earth by pyramid.

Machine parts were instant snap frozen...machine in law mass was put back in its natural beginning law. Inside of earths mass is our warning.

Movies made depicting if you believe in bible end of time....and use its technology inferences earth will collapse. Origin crime A crime A double alpha mind...America.

Proved machines are evil.

He has always known machines are evil.

The only reason written testimony was written...to keep historical records. As evil men tried to burn all books as evidence...or you could infer good men burnt the books to destroy anyone referencing it.

Your choice.

 

[Brian2]

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.

What are the criteria of a divinely authored text in your opinion?

 

[fantome profane]

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?

It is a fair question, and honestly I don't think I can give a good answer. Maybe I could but it would involve time and research and sources etc, and I just don't have the time or energy for that. But I will give a general basic answer.

Why a literal God and a non-literal talking snake? Two reasons. First is just intellectual charity. I am assuming that these people were basically intelligent people, or at least had a similar mix of intelligent and less intelligent people that our own culture has. And it is the view of the intelligent people I am talking about.

And also there is the context. Not just the context of the text, but also the context of the culture, what we know about that culture, other cultures in the area at the time, and the culture that developed. And there just isn't any evidence that I am aware of for a "God as higher self" concept.

The foundations of the Jewish culture were never dependent on a literal talking snake. But they were based on the idea of a literal God, a God who created the world, a God who has a relationship with humanity etc.

And even more generally (yes, I can be more vague than I already have) I believe that this is how humans use stories. They tell stories to make a point, not just to transmit data. What I mean is, that if I am correct about what this story is intended to convey you can imagine it written in a point form list:
-God is real
-God created the world
-God created life forms
-God created humans
-God has expectations of humans

and so on. But such a list would not be very entertaining. Such a list would not be inspirational, it would not be repeated, talked about, dreamt about etc. So humans put things like this into the stories we tell. We have always conveyed information like that, we do that today.

We create "memes".

I don't expect this to convince you, but I hope you at least find it reasonable.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

I would submit creation to the flood was one story.

 

[rational experiences]

The church built by building type thought upon as medical healing....for water resonance holy water life. By music played or singing resounding inside the building.

As life bio living in nature's water has been attacked.

Founded a hypocrites organisation of legality. A proceeding against the history of men of Satanism science as hypocrites too.

In their organisation hypocrites was an innocent poor humans promise. Stated. To serve save their poor life.

As murder was the criminal act. By scientific causes. The men who loved did not agree with murder. Yet paid then absolved the men who removed the lives of those who were the humans life destroyer.

Did not believe in wars as war meant more innocent life not guilty would be harmed. Because of king lord rich man's history.

Stance a father yet celibate. History father was never celibate. Stance the choice as a teaching position.

Is the recorded memories of why the church was founded by hypocrites. The promise of a no nuclear science practice. As earths heavens needed to cool and remass its body.

Why stars are now observed as much brighter...body mass heavens gone sacrificed wasn't allowed to cool return. As per UFO sun dust mass nuclear above advices. Eventually effect would have stopped.

Why asteroid mass comes so close to earth leaving dust trails. Wandering saviour.

To serve protect innocent life of the poor and implement conditions of service to the poor. Who were just family in community living. The churches founding.

Why they absolved those men of any sin...saying to protect my family on earth as it was a service.

Not lying as a human...is the actual reason for particular past life mens choices. The reality of what was forgotten today..... the purpose and promise to protect life on earth.

All of it.

 

[rational experiences]

Father's advice about the theist man non father's owned past...but a man.

Once on origin earth his memory stated he owned a higher biological life of human form with no bio death. The first man theist.

Men today tried to prove the circumstance was real by only meditating in life not eating. Trying to keep a cell vibration. Very bodily thin. Still died. But believed in teaching others by that method....we had lived before and higher life type.

That man to you today was like your own god. But just a man. As a theist man of machine scientist.

Who tried to time shift biology by machine. Had in fact destroyed all life on origin earth I know by visionary causes as bio attacked I felt like I had entered earths depths in deep tunnels.

Knowing I had ....yet understood it was by causes of man's machine past. Who had caused the gained vision.

Hence by man with machine history I know it's real human bio warnings by causes.

I saw a vision before and I was aware I owned my life...my visionary advice as if I'd been flying....my brother who I could not see was with me. Earth was finishing glugging under a water flood. And the advice said all life origin destroyed.

As just a sea.

The advice said as he termed the gained presence mass into sand...to time. That earths previous fresh water layered mass was now beneath was gone....converted as earths facure was also converted.

Why some machine parts are found on top of the ground..had been embedded under earth mass layers first. Angle of hit of the machine as proof.

As he said sands of time. He had in fact shifted earths natural crust mass. By raising earths water pressures off the ground mass.

As water was lifted off earths face then it deluged back. Ended life on earth as just salt water.

Fresh water held deep within earths tunnel system then re emerged. By evaporation cause. It's why he taught fresh water was inside the stone.

As human proof he knew and remembered in Egyptian attack how he had previously caused all life's destruction on earth.

Before...a long time ago.

Why he remembered when earths sea water mass shifted again. In Egyptian causes.

It's why the holy human order were psychic visionaries. Always had been humans who'd seen the recorded advice held in stars returned Akashic memory.

 

[rational experiences]

A human man says what is...I see observe.

What was...I see and observe.

The destroyer man theist with machine...as no human man is a destroyer without a machine. Ignored both natural advices.

Pretended he wasn't advised by what is or was.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It is a fair question, and honestly I don't think I can give a good answer. Maybe I could but it would involve time and research and sources etc, and I just don't have the time or energy for that. But I will give a general basic answer.

Why a literal God and a non-literal talking snake? Two reasons. First is just intellectual charity. I am assuming that these people were basically intelligent people, or at least had a similar mix of intelligent and less intelligent people that our own culture has. And it is the view of the intelligent people I am talking about.

And also there is the context. Not just the context of the text, but also the context of the culture, what we know about that culture, other cultures in the area at the time, and the culture that developed. And there just isn't any evidence that I am aware of for a "God as higher self" concept.

The foundations of the Jewish culture were never dependent on a literal talking snake. But they were based on the idea of a literal God, a God who created the world, a God who has a relationship with humanity etc.

And even more generally (yes, I can be more vague than I already have) I believe that this is how humans use stories. They tell stories to make a point, not just to transmit data. What I mean is, that if I am correct about what this story is intended to convey you can imagine it written in a point form list:
-God is real
-God created the world
-God created life forms
-God created humans
-God has expectations of humans

and so on. But such a list would not be very entertaining. Such a list would not be inspirational, it would not be repeated, talked about, dreamt about etc. So humans put things like this into the stories we tell. We have always conveyed information like that, we do that today.

We create "memes".

I don't expect this to convince you, but I hope you at least find it reasonable.

IMO the point is to explain how things came to be, why there is evil, why are there patterns/laws/cycles... The stories use imagination and guesswork to answer these questions. It's not that they knew something and they wanted to make it more interesting. They just didn't have a clue.

Memes? The latest translation of the Bible:
The Contemporary Meme Bible

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

The Bible is a collection of many books and passages of all different genres. Because some people are overly literal, "myth" gets a bad name. Some people use the word myth as synonymous with the word lie. But nothing could be farther from the case. Myth, a creative teaching story, is one of the most powerful forms of literature there is, so it should hardly surprise us that the Bible would include myth.

I always recommend Tokien's famous essay, "On Fairy Stories" for those who are resistant to the idea that myth is valuable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you have any doubts against the "science"? Could it be wrong, or could you have misunderstood what the Bible tells?

One should have doubts about science. That is part of the scientific method. What one does when one finds a reasonable doubt is to test an idea and see if it holds up or not. That is how we keep learning in the sciences. And when we have tested the ideas of science verses a literal interpretation of Genesis the literal interpretation is the one that suffers. There are minor errors that are constantly discovered in the sciences, but they never lead towards Genesis.

And doubt is a huge problem for the Bible. When properly tested it does not do well. In fact believers in a literal Genesis are afraid to test their Bible. That is an act of someone that is afraid that he might be wrong and believing a falsehood is seen to be better than believing in the truth. Scientists tend to be lovers of the truth which is why they are more than happy to test their own ideas and try to disprove them quite often. Do you love the truth or do you love a story?

 

[1213]

... And when we have tested the ideas of science verses a literal interpretation of Genesis the literal interpretation is the one that suffers...

Sorry, I don't think that is true. But maybe you could prove it to be true?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I don't think that is true. But maybe you could prove it to be true?

It has already been done. I cannot help someone that purposefully embraces ignorance. If one is willing to learn the basics of the scientific method it is not hard to understand at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It has already been done. I cannot help someone that purposefully embraces ignorance. If one is willing to learn the basics of the scientific method it is not hard to understand at all.

And learn that is it is methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and that science has these limits:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

So a person is ignorant. Okay, but you can't use science to solve how you ought to act in regards to that.

That is the limit of science. It hasn't solved the is-ought problem and neither have religion or philosophy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And learn that is it is methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and that science has these limits:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

So a person is ignorant. Okay, but you can't use science to solve how you ought to act in regards to that.

That is the limit of science. It hasn't solved the is-ought problem and neither have religion or philosophy.

I never implied that the sciences had done so. The sciences can be used to answer some problems but not all of them. For example science does not refute God. It can only refute certain God claims. The problem is that many believers seem to think that if their personal version of God has been refuted then that means that God has been refuted. That is not the case.

 

[setarcos]

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

Hey danieldemol thanks for the invite and mentioning my name here...your gonna make me famous...or infamous. Lol.
Sorry I'm late to this but living gets in the way you know.
As for non-scientific information in genesis that is something debatable. Keep in mind as with all ancient documents one must make a little effort into researching who wrote it, when it was written, and why it was written. I believe that for a document written over 2 millennia plus years ago the Pentateuch makes some remarkably original observations that are compatible with what modern science has asserted.
For instance...I believe most of ancient humankind never considered the creation of the sun as being chronologically oriented. Genesis declares that the sun was created in a process (which science says it was) prior to the creation of the earth and the creatures on it (which science agrees with). As for the timeline, its not a remarkable thing that these creative events were referenced in genesis by days since cyclical events took place from sun up to sun down for ancient man. All things were referenced by days not millennia. The days in genesis indicate a chronological delineation between those events. Heck the scriptures even give hints about mans chronological relationship with God by saying that a day to God is like a thousand years to man.(paraphrasing)
As for the talking serpent....we don't exactly know what "kind" of creature spoke to the first people. I suspect the reference to serpent was indicative of how ancient peoples "viewed" their experience with the animal not the actual embodiment of the animal. That being said, all animals communicate. That's not remarkable. Even if we specifically stick with human language and intelligible syntax, some birds do it all the time. Can other animals? We don't know. Certainly many other animals can communicate intelligibly with humans if not with vocalization of human language with vocalization of their own like in dolphins.
And honestly, its an all or nothing deal here. IF you accept an existent creator God then consideration of a talking serpent would be trivial. Your talking about supernatural events and a supernatural being in the guise of a literary embodiment of a serpent. Actually If your using the example of a talking serpent to prove the impossibility of genesis then your not very involved in what we've discovered about nature to date like the few examples I've given you above.
Biologists continually discover remarkable things in nature. A talking animal wouldn't surprise me. Talk about hubris for humans to think they know all there is to know about biological and species possibilities.
I haven't had time to read the rest of this thread but I'll see what's happening here and hopefully continue the discussion. Thanks

 

[danieldemol]

What are the criteria of a divinely authored text in your opinion?

It depends on the nature of the God in question.

Without a God handing us a complete set of criteria a divine text should meet we are left to make some reasonable assumptions.

So if the God in question is said to be a merciful God that is All-knowing and omnipotent it is reasonable to assume that it would not want reasonable people to be led astray as that is not merciful.

Therefore one of the essential criteria a divinely authored text needs to meet is that it would not lead a reasonable person astray from the time it was authored onwards.

Genesis fails to meet this minimum criteria woefully.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

The Bible is a collection of many books and passages of all different genres. Because some people are overly literal, "myth" gets a bad name. Some people use the word myth as synonymous with the word lie. But nothing could be farther from the case. Myth, a creative teaching story, is one of the most powerful forms of literature there is, so it should hardly surprise us that the Bible would include myth.

I always recommend Tokien's famous essay, "On Fairy Stories" for those who are resistant to the idea that myth is valuable.

I'm sure that fairy stories are valuable, im just not convinced the authors of Genesis were passing it on to us as a fairy tale.

In my opinion.

 

[Brian2]

It depends on the nature of the God in question.

Without a God handing us a complete set of criteria a divine text should meet we are left to make some reasonable assumptions.

So if the God in question is said to be a merciful God that is All-knowing and omnipotent it is reasonable to assume that it would not want reasonable people to be led astray as that is not merciful.

Therefore one of the essential criteria a divinely authored text needs to meet is that it would not lead a reasonable person astray from the time it was authored onwards.

Genesis fails to meet this minimum criteria woefully.

In my opinion.

I would have thought that the Biblical account (which includes Genesis and other parts of the Bible) does give a good and accurate account of what happened.
But of course when I say that I don't see the Bible as a science text book (It is written for people in all parts of human history) and I don't necessarily see the answers that science has given as being 100% accurate.

 

[danieldemol]

Hey danieldemol thanks for the invite and mentioning my name here...your gonna make me famous...or infamous. Lol.
Sorry I'm late to this but living gets in the way you know.
As for non-scientific information in genesis that is something debatable. Keep in mind as with all ancient documents one must make a little effort into researching who wrote it, when it was written, and why it was written. I believe that for a document written over 2 millennia plus years ago the Pentateuch makes some remarkably original observations that are compatible with what modern science has asserted.
For instance...I believe most of ancient humankind never considered the creation of the sun as being chronologically oriented. Genesis declares that the sun was created in a process (which science says it was) prior to the creation of the earth and the creatures on it (which science agrees with). As for the timeline, its not a remarkable thing that these creative events were referenced in genesis by days since cyclical events took place from sun up to sun down for ancient man. All things were referenced by days not millennia. The days in genesis indicate a chronological delineation between those events.

What you are doing is counting the hits and ignoring the misses. For Genesis to be authored from an All-knowing God zero misses in the arena of knowledge can be accepted.

Heck the scriptures even give hints about mans chronological relationship with God by saying that a day to God is like a thousand years to man.(paraphrasing)

That is not a part of Genesis, but I'll let that slide for the purpose of addressing your point. Whether the sun was created after the fourth day or whether it was created after four thousand years worth of days it is still an illogical assertion because days are formed due to earth spinning on it's axis relative to the sun as it orbits the sun. So with no sun you can have neither 4 days nor 4 thousand days. It is a contradiction and a scientific error.

As for the talking serpent....we don't exactly know what "kind" of creature spoke to the first people.

Speak for yourself, the authors of Genesis didn't say it was an unknown kind of creature. If we are to listen to the authors it was a talking serpent, it says so right there in Genesis 3:1.

Here it is since you missed it;
'Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”' (NIV translation)

That being said, all animals communicate. That's not remarkable. Even if we specifically stick with human language and intelligible syntax, some birds do it all the time. Can other animals?

Sure, but we are not talking about the dancing of bees to communicate the position of pollens nor are we talking about the mere mimicry of birds. Nor are we talking about creatures that evolved advanced brains like dolphins. Rather we are talking about a serpent without the evolution of the advanced brain of the dolphin or the mimcry of birds, and we are talking about it having a conversation in human language, and a persuasive conversation at that.

And honestly, its an all or nothing deal here. IF you accept an existent creator God then consideration of a talking serpent would be trivial. Your talking about supernatural events and a supernatural being in the guise of a literary embodiment of a serpent.

Aha, so the answer is magic. I suspected as much, but when has magic ever turned out to be the answer? And besides, I reject God as creator of the material realms so where does that leave us?

Actually If your using the example of a talking serpent to prove the impossibility of genesis then your not very involved in what we've discovered about nature to date like the few examples I've given you above.

To the contrary as refuted above.

Biologists continually discover remarkable things in nature. A talking animal wouldn't surprise me. Talk about hubris for humans to think they know all there is to know about biological and species possibilities.

It is not hubris, because we are not considering the possibility. The possibility of a talking snake is similar to the possibility of Russell's Teapot orbiting the Eagle nebulae. It may be there possibly, but the story doesn't say sin entered the world because there possibly was a talking serpent. It says sin entered the world because there was actually a talking serpent tha gave a persuasive argument. So we have to assess the likelihood of this claim being true using reason. And using reason it is unlikely that a serpent spoke because they collectively evolved primitive voice boxes only capable of hissing and the like, and small primitive brains incapable of advanced forms of human speech such as persuasive language.

In my opinion.

Thanks

Your welcome.

 

[danieldemol]

I would have thought that the Biblical account (which includes Genesis and other parts of the Bible) does give a good and accurate account of what happened.

You are answering your own question here, I said it should not lead a reasonable person astray (which it has done many a time).

But of course when I say that I don't see the Bible as a science text book (It is written for people in all parts of human history) and I don't necessarily see the answers that science has given as being 100% accurate.

Well of course if you are going to dismiss science and reason you have no yardstick by which to measure the accuracy of Genesis, and then seeing it as accurate just becomes a matter of personal preference rather than reason, so there becomes no means of getting other people who do not share your personal preference to agree to the way you see it.

In my opinion.