Got doubts about Genesis?

[Subduction Zone]

Well I'll be. They found Noah's Ark. Those dang Chinese had it all along:

 

[danieldemol]

He showed, conclusively, in, Conjectures and Refutations, that the ancients knowingly, and purposefully, used metaphors like a talking snake, the sun being created the forth day, or the sun being a deity, in order to piece together scientific nuances without which our modern scientific endeavor would have been stillborn.

That's a big claim, would you care to share how he allegedly did that?

In my opinion.

Popper realized something earthshatteringly important about scientific-thought by deconstructing how it developed and evolved. Over the course of his brilliant examination in Conjecture's and Refutations, he shows that there are two primary elements to scientific discovery. First is a deductive claim, and second is an empirical examination to test the deductive claim.

That sounds pretty unremarkable and obvious until one appreciates Popper's definition of what a "deductive" claim is. In the typical thinking of even world-class scientists the deductive claims that lead to empirical examination are themselves based on empirical observations. But to his credit Popper comes to realize that's not the case:

My thesis is that what we call “science” is differentiated from the older myths not by being something distinct from myth, but by being accompanied by a second-order tradition---that of critically discussing the myth. . . In critical discussions which now arose there also arose, for the first time, something like systematic observation. . . Thus it is the myth or the theory which leads to, and guides, our systematic observations----observations undertaken with the intention of probing into the truth of the theory or myth. From this point of view the growth of the theories of science should not be considered as the result of the collection, or accumulation, of observations; on the contrary, the observations and their accumulation should be considered as the result of the growth of the scientific theories.

Conjectures and Refutations, p. 127. (emphasis mine).​

In his statement above, Popper claims scientific theories arise as systematic, critical, assessments or examinations of myth. Throughout his examinations he's clear that science only examines myths, and deductive hypotheses; it never creates the seminal,deductive claim, that's the material that science shapes into a new reality.

So where does the seminal, deductive, inference, or claim, that science requires, come from if not the scientific endeavor? According to Popper, myth. So what precisely is "myth" such that it's the seminal element of scientific endeavor?



John

It appears you have not answered my question. You have shown Popper explaining his view that myth and testing of myth drove science, but that doesn't explain how the ancients knowingly and purposefully used those particular myths as metaphors as opposed to intending them to be literal historical events which would later turn out to be myth under testing it would seem.

In my opinion

 

[John D. Brey]

It appears you have not answered my question. You have shown Popper explaining his view that myth and testing of myth drove science, but that doesn't explain how the ancients knowingly and purposefully used those particular myths as metaphors as opposed to intending them to be literal historical events which would later turn out to be myth under testing it would seem.

I think you're making a a point of incredible importance. And we even have a test case for your statement since we have an ethnicity extant today that we can put under the scientific microscope to answer your question.

Orthodox Jews continue to practice a ritual that goes back to the days when myth and ritual were the singular form of scientific revelation and discovery. Do they accept it as a metaphorical, or mythological form of scientific truth (hidden in the ritual or myth), or do they practice it as though the myth, the ritual, is the end, the reality, literality, in itself?

Does the Jew accept the removal of the foreskin of the male organ as a metaphor for some scientific truth that's hidden in the ritual or myth (as I imply it should probably be read) or does he, as you imply, take it literally that removing some flesh from the male organ signifies that he's Jewish just because it does?

What does it mean when people take the mythological form of a scientific truth as a literal truth in itself rather than as a truth hidden beneath the fore skene of a ritual or myth? Would it be fair to imply that taking a mythologized scientific fact as though it were literal in its mythological covering is like making prayer requests to the sun or walking around talking to snakes in order to gain god-like wisdom?



John

 

[danieldemol]

I think you're making a a point of incredible importance. And we even have a test case for your statement since we have an ethnicity extant today that we can put under the scientific microscope to answer your question.

Orthodox Jews continue to practice a ritual that goes back to the days when myth and ritual were the singular form of scientific revelation and discovery. Do they accept it as a metaphorical, or mythological form of scientific truth (hidden in the ritual or myth), or do they practice it as though the myth, the ritual, is the end, the reality, literality, in itself?

What modern orthodox Jews believe after they have had several millenniums to post hoc rationalise their stories is irrelevant to what the ancients believed.

In my opinion.

 

[John D. Brey]

What modern orthodox Jews believe after they have had several millenniums to post hoc rationalise their stories is irrelevant to what the ancients believed.

You might have misunderstood my point. Most orthodox Jews still treat a mythological revelation/deduction (ritual circumcision) as the ancients treated worship of the sun: as though it were a literal reality/truth, rather than a scientific revelation garbed in a cloak that will be (the garb will be) garb-age in an age when the truth is revealed in understandable scientific reasoning.

Copernicus studied in Bologna under the Platonist Novara; and Copernicus' idea of placing the sun rather than the earth in the centre of the universe was not the result of new observations but of a new interpretation of old and well-known facts in the light of semi-religious Platonic and Neo-Platonic ideas. The crucial idea can be traced back to the sixth book of Plato's Republic, where we can read that the sun plays the same role in the realm of visible things as does the idea of the good in the realm of ideas. Now the idea of the good is the highest in the hierarchy of Platonic ideas. Accordingly the sun, which endows visible things with their visibility, vitality, growth and progress, is the highest in the hierarchy of visible things in nature.

Conjectures and Refutations, p. 187.​

Ergo:

Now if the sun was to be given pride of place, if the sun merited a divine status in the hierarchy of visible things, then it was hardly possible for it to revolve about the earth. The only fitting place for so exalted a star was the centre of the universe. So the earth was bound to revolve about the sun. This Platonic idea, then, forms the historical background of the Copernican revolution. It [the Copernican revolution] does not start with [natural] observations, but with a religious or mythological idea.

Ibid.​

Cutting and bleeding the male organ is a religion idea. But it has a scientific meaning that's quite literally capable of commanding a much more earthshattering revelation of truth than was the truth of heliocentrism. Man came to understand that the sun is the center of the solar system at a time when that truth was able to be proven and accepted . . . could no longer be denied. The truth garbed in the mythological symbol of cutting the male organ has finally arrived at a time when what it means ---scientifically ---is important to the future of humanity. Will you deny it its time in the sun?



John

 

[Brian2]

You are already not taking it literally. It is nowhere near being true. And what was the point of it if your version is correct? The bad guys could have just walked uphill.

The flood could have come suddenly. They might have walked up hill but ended up at the top of a local hill that was surrounded by water and eventually covered.
I'm taking it literally with the alternative translation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The flood could have come suddenly. They might have walked up hill but ended up at the top of a local hill that was surrounded by water and eventually covered.
I'm taking it literally with the alternative translation.

Develop a model and then we can discuss it. You need God's motives too since your views are so different from what the Bible teaches.

 

[Brian2]

This apologist link is not peer reviewed in at least three ways.
1. It has not been reviewed for inconsistency with the story, for example it says, 'This is not a reference to the creation of light, since God has always been surrounded by light'
But Genesis 1:2 says, 'Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.' So if the spirit of God was hovering over the waters and there was darkness over the surface this cannot be if God is always surrounded by light. It is a simple logical contradiction.
2. It has not been reviewed for consistency with science
3. It has not even been reviewed by other apologists, for example here is a Christian apologist website thoroughly refuting that create (Bara) and make (Asah) are words that are not used interchangeably;
Do the Hebrew words for create (Bara, Asah) support a gap?.

https://christadelphiansoriginsdiscussion.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/the-hebrew-for-create-in-genesis/

It does not need to be consistent with science, he is telling us what words mean and what he thinks certain passages mean.
God is actually said to be light (1John 1:5) but this imo is symbolic of God revealing error, shining truth into darkness. It is not speaking about physical light.
God is everywhere according to the Bible and so according to your interpretation of God's "light" there cannot be physical darkness anywhere.
And yes the YECers do say that Bara and Asah mean the same thing. They would need to say that even if various Hebrew word books disagree.
So are you saying that because there are different interpretations of Genesis that no one of them can be right?
How to disprove something................... Come up with an alternative explanation.
That's a joke Joyce.

Correction, you are doing it in light of what *modern* science thinks, that is the very definition of post-hoc rationalisation..

So if it agrees with science you find a way to say it is wrong and if it disagrees with science you would also say it can't be right. OK.
Interpreting in light of science says does not mean it is a post-hoc rationalisation. If God had started raving on about microbes and tectonic plates etc etc and nobody knew WTF He was talking about until science discovered those things, I suppose you would also call that a post-hoc rationalisation.

I *do not* think they were stupid, they just didn't have the collective observations and scientific experience that modern man has. Which is not a fault in a pre-modern man, but is a fault in an All-Knowing God..

Are you saying that God should have made us with pre programmed knowledge of everything?
But really it does not take much observation to see that light comes from the sun etc and that it would be nonsense to say that light came and then the sun. But if that is what you want to say they said and Genesis means OK.

You say this in spite of them openly telling you that they thought that light came at the operation of God's comand..

I say it because Gen 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. The heavens includes the sun etc and so the sun was out there on the other side of the clouds that surrounded the earth in a blanket of thick darkness (Job 38:9)

Those who see it as a creation myth in the abscence of any explanation from them as to it's meaning are assumed by me to see it as meaning that God is the creator, and humans are sinners.
But I do not believe there is any evidence of God creating where we would expect to find it, so I have already rejected that element of it even as a myth. I can believe that humans can do wrongdoing to each other, but not to an omnipotent God who can't be harmed in the slightest..

So what is this evidence of God creating that you reject and where would you expect to find it?
Does this mean that if you think that there might be a God that this God would not have created anything?

I believe it can be understood in multiple ways, but i don't believe it was *intended* to be understood in multiple ways, I believe it was intended to be interpreted similarly to the way a YEC would interpret it because the authors seem to have been YECs..

I don't think the authors were evolutionists but I doubt they thought that the sun was created on day 4 even if YECers think that.
But of course the real author is God and those who penned it, possible Moses, were not making it up.
So God being the real author would mean that He would write things that all parts of history would be able to understand and see as the truth. Then when science discovered evolution and other things about the history of the earth etc, that the story should be able to fit into that also.

But when you speak about day and night coming from the sun you are also reading modern knowledge into it. And why would an omnipotent God be incapable of explaining to man the difference between sky and space? If flimsy modern men could explain it to little children (as they do in school) then surely an omnipotent God could?.

I think ancient man knew that when the sun rose, it was day and when it set it was night.
Are you saying, when you talk about explaining the difference between space and sky, that God needed to explain everything in detail or it cannot be true? Genesis would have ended up being very long if it should have all the knowledge of physical science in it.

And likewise it can take time to see what the author of Genesis was getting at when you have been taught it means something else and are used to understanding it that way..

I know it took me a while to be able to see it the way I see it, and so that evolution can also be fitted into it. All we have been talking about so far is some of the physical history of the universe and earth and you can't see that. And I had some incentive to try to see it with evolution in it and agreeing with what science has discovered about the early history of the earth.

Sure God could make a bird with lead wings and a body of solid gold to fly if God wanted, have you ever seen a bird with wings made of lead and a body of solid gold flying?

In my opinion.

I haven't seen that recently.
Gold wings are more inspiring than a lead bird however it seems.
Tico and the Golden Wings by Leo Lionni

 

[Brian2]

Develop a model and then we can discuss it. You need God's motives too since your views are so different from what the Bible teaches.

Motives? To give people a chance to repent?
To give the world a real story that could be shown scientifically to be true?
To give us a symbolic meaning when we see a rainbow or a dove with and olive branch?

Again science has shown us what the Bible story means and how it should be translated (legitimately)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Motives? To give people a chance to repent?
To give the world a real story that could be shown scientifically to be true?
To give us a symbolic meaning when we see a rainbow or a dove with and olive branch?

Again science has shown us what the Bible story means and how it should be translated (legitimately)

There is nothing in the story about giving people a chance to forget.

Science refutes the flood so far. Remember, you do not have a model.

Why would a promise not to follow through on an empty threat give anyone hope"

And no, science refuted that story. You cannot make a claim that science supports it until you have a working model.

And I am still waiting for a proper motive.

 

[danieldemol]

It does not need to be consistent with science

It does if it is aiming not to lead intelligent people astray, in other words if it is intending to be merciful to *all* people, not just those who will believe anything they are indoctrinated into.

and so according to your interpretation of God's "light" there cannot be physical darkness anywhere.

Excuse me, if you think it is *my* interpretation you didn't pay attention to your own link. It is Frank Nelte's interpretation that God's light is a reference to actual light. Not mine.

And yes the YECers do say that Bara and Asah mean the same thing. They would need to say that even if various Hebrew word books disagree.

And why do they "need" to say it? Is it because they are paying closer attention to the Biblical constraints than what you are? You haven't addressed their argument at all here.

So are you saying that because there are different interpretations of Genesis that no one of them can be right?
How to disprove something................... Come up with an alternative explanation.
That's a joke Joyce.

I specifically disclaimed saying this in post #102 in reply to post #101 where you raised the same question. Are you paying attention to what I'm saying because if not there is little point continuing this debate.

So if it agrees with science you find a way to say it is wrong and if it disagrees with science you would also say it can't be right. OK.

That's not an accurate representation of what I'm saying.
What I am saying is that person A writes a story with full knowledge of what they mean when they author it. Person B then comes along who has knowledge of things that person A did not have knowledge of, re-interprets the story, then claims that their interpretation is the original interpretation. Person C then comes along with knowledge of things that person B did not have, reinterprets the story then claims their interpretation of the story is the original interpretation. This goes on for person D, E, F etc. The story changes in meaning each time.

Then it is clear that the story has changed. Persons B through to F are all liars for claiming their interpretation is the original true interpretation.

After thousands of years, you are probably not even at the stage of person F, still you want to claim that your interpretation is the original interpretation in spite of all the internal inconsistencies it makes with the story due to trying to force fit knowledge into it that was never in the scope of the original story. That is post-hoc rationalisation.

Interpreting in light of science says does not mean it is a post-hoc rationalisation.

Changing intepretations every time some new bit of information comes to light that the author clearly didn't know about is the very definition of post-hoc rationalisation.

If God had started raving on about microbes and tectonic plates etc etc and nobody knew WTF He was talking about until science discovered those things, I suppose you would also call that a post-hoc rationalisation.

No, I would call it unmerciful of God to reveal scientific information without explaining it to the people. You don't seem to be aware of the degree of responsibility that a merciful All-knowing Omnipotent God has to the recipients of it's revelation.

Are you saying that God should have made us with pre programmed knowledge of everything?

That would not be necessary. Genesis doesn't make testable claims about everything.

But really it does not take much observation to see that light comes from the sun etc and that it would be nonsense to say that light came and then the sun.

Sure, but that little observation is more than what the authors of Genesis had made.

I say it because Gen 1:1 tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. The heavens includes the sun etc and so the sun was out there on the other side of the clouds that surrounded the earth in a blanket of thick darkness (Job 38:9)

Job 38:9 does not say, "the sun was out there on the other side of the clouds that surrounded the earth in a blanket of thick darkness", it says "when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness" Additionally it says that this happened when, "the sea" "burst forth from the womb"Job38:8 (NIV). Aside from how unscientific that is, it implies that the earth was undergoing a process of creation, which is re-affirmed in Job 38:14 which states, "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal". But the problem is if we were to follow your logic then the earth is a part of the heavens and thus when God created the heavens in the beginning it raises contradiction for the earth to still be taking shape.

If you want to bring Job into the discussion at least start not by cherrypicking it, but rather read chapter 38 in it's entirety and note the anti-scientific information in it, for example Job 38:22-23;
'Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?'

Of course hail and snow are not kept in store houses reserved for days of battle, it is unscientific nonsense. But I'm sure you have found a dubious way of post-hoc rationalising that as well lol.

So what is this evidence of God creating that you reject and where would you expect to find it?

Well for example if planets, suns etc were stationary bodies that began moving when God breathed on them then since new suns and planets are coming into being all the time we would expect to observe the spirit of God out there breathing on stationary planets and other heavenly bodies getting them spinning. We don't observe this, instead what we observe is gas/dust clouds collapsing under gravity into suns/ planets and their spin being a product of induction from the way the clouds collapse and the collisions that go on inside them setting their bodies spinning.

Does this mean that if you think that there might be a God that this God would not have created anything?

I don't see God as the creator of the material realm, and do not even know if God created the spirit realm.

I don't think the authors were evolutionists but I doubt they thought that the sun was created on day 4 even if YECers think that.
But of course the real author is God and those who penned it, possible Moses, were not making it up.
So God being the real author would mean that He would write things that all parts of history would be able to understand and see as the truth. Then when science discovered evolution and other things about the history of the earth etc, that the story should be able to fit into that also.

The story does not fit with the discoveries of science as my cross-examination of Genesis and now Job show. And it is your assumption that the real author is God - an assumption which I doubt you are open minded enough to reconsider no matter how much contrary evidence exists.

I think ancient man knew that when the sun rose, it was day and when it set it was night.

Sure, but not all of them knew that the sun was the source of light, the author of Genesis tells you that they believe God's command is the source of light.

Are you saying, when you talk about explaining the difference between space and sky, that God needed to explain everything in detail or it cannot be true? Genesis would have ended up being very long if it should have all the knowledge of physical science in it.

No, but explaining the difference between the space and sky is hardly explaining all the knowledge of physical science. Not by a long shot.

I know it took me a while to be able to see it the way I see it, and so that evolution can also be fitted into it. All we have been talking about so far is some of the physical history of the universe and earth and you can't see that. And I had some incentive to try to see it with evolution in it and agreeing with what science has discovered about the early history of the earth.

Sure you had incentive. But was that incentive your pay as a preacher or the promise of eternal life which can dupe anyone into seeing things with a degree of pseudo-certainty that is unjustified because they desperately want it to be true?

In my opinion

 

[Brian2]

It does if it is aiming not to lead intelligent people astray, in other words if it is intending to be merciful to *all* people, not just those who will believe anything they are indoctrinated into.

I can't really help it is science has a naturalistic methodology and does not say in it's published material that it is what may have happened if God was not involved in it.
Also I am just one voice and there are many Christians who have a more completely naturalistic approach to how God did it, that's fine and they might be right.
Others say that the creation story is just a creation myth with not much of a link to what happened.
If you wanted you have a wide variety of choices to how you could understand the creation story and it is no excuse for not saying that the Bible is wrong unless you want to just use it that way without good reason.

Excuse me, if you think it is *my* interpretation you didn't pay attention to your own link. It is Frank Nelte's interpretation that God's light is a reference to actual light. Not mine.

OK sorry, you just want to use a probable mistake in what Frank said, or a misunderstanding in what he was saying to discredit all of what he said.

And why do they "need" to say it? Is it because they are paying closer attention to the Biblical constraints than what you are? You haven't addressed their argument at all here.

I haven't got the time of inclination to address the YEC arguments. They do need to say bara and asah mean the same thing however because that is their position, that when it says God baraed or God asahed something that it is the same and it means that God zapped it into existence is a very short time even if the words are different and actually have different possible meanings.

I specifically disclaimed saying this in post #102 in reply to post #101 where you raised the same question. Are you paying attention to what I'm saying because if not there is little point continuing this debate.

OK sorry my attention span if not great,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, too much TV as a child I guess.

That's not an accurate representation of what I'm saying.
What I am saying is that person A writes a story with full knowledge of what they mean when they author it. Person B then comes along who has knowledge of things that person A did not have knowledge of, re-interprets the story, then claims that their interpretation is the original interpretation. Person C then comes along with knowledge of things that person B did not have, reinterprets the story then claims their interpretation of the story is the original interpretation. This goes on for person D, E, F etc. The story changes in meaning each time.

Then it is clear that the story has changed. Persons B through to F are all liars for claiming their interpretation is the original true interpretation.

After thousands of years, you are probably not even at the stage of person F, still you want to claim that your interpretation is the original interpretation in spite of all the internal inconsistencies it makes with the story due to trying to force fit knowledge into it that was never in the scope of the original story. That is post-hoc rationalisation.

If all those ways A to F actually do not change the story then the story has done it's job and been understandable in all scientific paradigms. Genesis does not change, it is if A to F can fit in that is important.
Actually I don't see that I have made contradictions with my approach, I think that you have read it originally with contradictions in your understanding and some of that has been cleared up if you have been taking it on board. It is not as if your interpretation of it is definitely what the author meant,,,,,,,,,,,,, especially if it produces contradictions in the story.
So both yours and my interpretation are post hoc interpretations. What the hoc is of course is different for both of us. Mine is post scientific research and believing the story is true and yours might be post reading it without putting much thought into it or wanting to see if it fits with the evolution paradigm or other things science says about that time in earth's history.

Changing intepretations every time some new bit of information comes to light that the author clearly didn't know about is the very definition of post-hoc rationalisation.

Whoever penned it no probably had their idea of what it meant but having faith in God being the dictator of the story means that only He knows what it really meant. It's similar to some OT prophecies, the Jews interpret them in their way but maybe God meant them to be speaking further of a Messiah.

No, I would call it unmerciful of God to reveal scientific information without explaining it to the people. You don't seem to be aware of the degree of responsibility that a merciful All-knowing Omnipotent God has to the recipients of it's revelation.

So a simple story as Genesis is, is better than trying to cram too much science into it.

That would not be necessary. Genesis doesn't make testable claims about everything.

And science also does not make testable claims about everything is speaks of so I don't feel too bad when I disagree with some things science says.

Sure, but that little observation is more than what the authors of Genesis had made.

No not really, it's just that the little observation about Gen 1:1 is something that you had not made and the observation that verse 2 on was speaking from the perspective of the surface of the earth was an observation that you had not made and you did not know about Job 38:9 and that the darkness was because of the covering of thick clouds.

Too many characters,,,,,,,,,,, I had to break it up into 2 posts.

 

[Brian2]

Job 38:9 does not say, "the sun was out there on the other side of the clouds that surrounded the earth in a blanket of thick darkness", it says "when I made the clouds its garment and wrapped it in thick darkness" Additionally it says that this happened when, "the sea" "burst forth from the womb"Job38:8 (NIV). Aside from how unscientific that is, it implies that the earth was undergoing a process of creation, which is re-affirmed in Job 38:14 which states, "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal". But the problem is if we were to follow your logic then the earth is a part of the heavens and thus when God created the heavens in the beginning it raises contradiction for the earth to still be taking shape.

If you want to bring Job into the discussion at least start not by cherrypicking it, but rather read chapter 38 in it's entirety and note the anti-scientific information in it, for example Job 38:22-23;
'Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
23 which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?'

Of course hail and snow are not kept in store houses reserved for days of battle, it is unscientific nonsense. But I'm sure you have found a dubious way of post-hoc rationalising that as well lol.

Yes I can post-hoc dubiously rationalise Job 38 as being poet language.
Science does not know where the water on earth came from and Job also does not tell us where it came from, it may have been a comet that smashed into the earth and even buried itself and then overheated and burst forth as Job 38 tells us. Anyway that is how the earth ended up surrounded in thick clouds and darkness. If the Bible taught that darkness was everywhere before the end of day one it would make no sense to say that the earth was wrapped in thick darkness by the clouds.
And notice the poetic language being used.

Job 38:8“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

Well for example if planets, suns etc were stationary bodies that began moving when God breathed on them then since new suns and planets are coming into being all the time we would expect to observe the spirit of God out there breathing on stationary planets and other heavenly bodies getting them spinning. We don't observe this, instead what we observe is gas/dust clouds collapsing under gravity into suns/ planets and their spin being a product of induction from the way the clouds collapse and the collisions that go on inside them setting their bodies spinning.

Really? I did not realise that my off the cuff suggestion of night and day might be a sign that God did not do it. I guess I'll go with the idea that the thick clouds cleared up enough for the light to get through and the earth was actually spinning all along. But really it is not so easy to say something shows that God did not do it. It's like a scientist saying that he has been looking at nature all his life and has not seen God or anything that needed a God, so God does not exist. She does not know what needed God and what was natural.
Personally I think that genes show the need for a God to have initially made the genes into a store of information which can be used but that is another story.

I don't see God as the creator of the material realm, and do not even know if God created the spirit realm.

OK, any particular reason? It sounds as if God would be just another creature like any other living thing, presuming you see God as living.

The story does not fit with the discoveries of science as my cross-examination of Genesis and now Job show. And it is your assumption that the real author is God - an assumption which I doubt you are open minded enough to reconsider no matter how much contrary evidence exists.

Well I did search out information about the early earth when I was in angst about the meaning of Genesis and was probably reconsidering whether the God of the Bible was a real God or not.
There are plenty of sites which speak of an early earth ocean and gases coming from the interior of the earth and cloud cover etc. (interestingly the mantle of the earth these days has a lot of water in it according to science.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_17.html
Harvard scientists determine early Earth may have been a water world
Earth's early Ocean - Windows to the Universe

Sure, but not all of them knew that the sun was the source of light, the author of Genesis tells you that they believe God's command is the source of light.

I would say that the author is saying that light appeared because God had a hand in doing it and it was not just natural forces that would have happened that way anyway.

No, but explaining the difference between the space and sky is hardly explaining all the knowledge of physical science. Not by a long shot.

True, but it would be inaccurate to say something like the atmosphere has gas and above that there is nothing, and that is space. Also I think God would have had to work with the language and concepts available at the time.

Sure you had incentive. But was that incentive your pay as a preacher or the promise of eternal life which can dupe anyone into seeing things with a degree of pseudo-certainty that is unjustified because they desperately want it to be true?

In my opinion

I just had faith as my incentive to look and see it the Genesis story could accommodate evolution and other things science had discovered of the past.

 

[setarcos]

For Genesis to be authored from an All-knowing God zero misses in the arena of knowledge can be accepted.

Genesis was authored by a human being with limit interpretive ability concerning revelatory information from God. In my opinion the perceived misses are a reflection of the interpretation of the limited abilities of that human being to impart Gods information to others.

That is not a part of Genesis, but I'll let that slide for the purpose of addressing your point.

? It is a part of scripture. There is a well-established lineage between the themes found in one book of scripture as compared to another found in scripture. For instance the Pentateuch, Torah, etc. hold their origins in Judaism. Christianity is a direct offshoot of said Judaism and uses/references its sacred scriptures and all those scriptures follow a coherent and cohesive unfolding of revelatory history. The quoted is a reflection on the differences in man’s abilities of perception as compared to Gods.

Not allowing such references because they are not found in what they refer to is like not allowing scientific theories which refer to natural processes because they are merely models and not the processes themselves. I'll let your misunderstanding slide for now.

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.

I thought I explained this. "Days" simply references a delineation in the chronology of the creative event. When Moses was writing genesis and references days it was the most readily understood way of referencing a Chronology of creative events. Mankind related their creative activity by the period between dawn and dusk, a "day". Or by collections of "days". We don't know how long a creative "day" took to do what God did. What we do know is that genesis is telling us it took a measurable period of time as we might experience it. A day is not referencing an existing earth rotating in this case. It is referencing a period of time which Moses records as the most personal experience mankind has with periods of time....a "day". You have to put a little effort into knowing how to read the bible and why to read it that way before you can properly critique it.

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.

It always amazes me how people criticize and critique without study and effort to understand. The author of genesis was using Hebrew. In Hebrew serpent (transliterated: nachash) simply means a hissing animal or the hiss the animal makes. The word is an onomatopoeia. Snakes hiss, lizards hiss, lots of things hiss. Presumably lots of extinct animals hissed. The leviathan in the bible is a synonym for serpent as well. Christian scripture is such that some books might enlighten us on meanings in other books in the bible being tied together into a coherent narrative of the unfolding of revelatory history. Let’s tie it together....

The Hebrew word serpent was used in Gen. 3:1. Its meaning leaves a little leeway as to what the animal was. It could even have been a mythological creature such as a dragon. In the book of Revelations we find this serpent to be equated with "Satan" the great deceiver. Also referenced as a dragon or the Leviathan throughout scripture. Was the serpent an actual snake? Probably not since the curse laid upon it referenced crawling on its belly and eating dust. Now what kind of curse would that be if you were already doing that? After all snakes don't walk, they don't fly, they crawl...on their belly.


I explain all this "Since you must have missed it" Which makes me wonder what you’re afraid of? It’s been my experience that people who insist on being right all the time are afraid of being wrong some of the time so they resort to sniping, ridiculing, and directly insulting in order to push their point.

mere mimicry of birds.

It is demonstrable fact that birds and other animals do not simply mimic, they think.

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.

How do you know how advanced a brain of a particular animal was way back when? Any particularly referenced linear evolution of a particular trait of an animal is still speculative at best. Used to be all evolution was thought to be steadily linear then that had to be revised upon discovery of further evidence into spurts and jumps and even reversals at times instead of linearity. And again the particular creature is speculative. And it was animated by the spiritual creature Satan which most certainly can speak.

Aha, so the answer is magic. I suspected as much, but when has magic ever turned out to be the answer?

?? What isn't magic...You familiar with Arthur C. Clark's quote? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

What is meant by technology is sufficiently advanced manipulation of nature. So it seems what your saying is that anything you don't understand or don't know how to fit into your worldview is to be dismissed as "magic". Whatever magic means to you. And “magic” can’t happen right?

And besides, I reject God as creator of the material realms so where does that leave us?

? The same place we've always been. If God exists I highly doubt that your rejection would cause it not to exist. If God doesn't exist then your rejection had no effect on that reality either.

To the contrary as refuted above.

I see your "to the contrary" and raise you a "to the contrary" to your "to the contrary" as I've refuted your refutation just below your above.

The possibility of a talking snake is similar to the possibility of Russell's Teapot orbiting the Eagle nebulae.

The probability of these possibilities relies upon their respective purposes. The probability is higher that that Teapot is there if 1) Russell had a reason/desire for putting it there and 2) Russell had the ability for putting it there.

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.

1) You keep referring to the creature as a snake such as one biologically classified today that you might be familiar with. I've rationally refuted your claim that it had to be an actual snake as such above. 2) Your fundamentally misunderstanding the use of reason and what it means to be rational. If we are discussing the coherent rationality of biblical events with the assumption of an existent God - Reasoning within the bibles claims - then a talking serpent is perfectly reasonable and is rationally coherent within the biblical narrative. If we are questioning the existence of God itself and therefore the biblical narrative which includes this God - reasoning outside of biblical claims - then we are no longer talking about questioning the claims of Genesis. So which are we talking about? Genesis or the existence of God?


I'll leave off with this, as meaningless as it might be to you it means something to me....

Matthew 13:14-38

"They have ears, but they don't listen. They have eyes, but they refuse to see. If their minds were not closed, they might see with their eyes; they might hear with their ears; they might understand with their minds."

 

[danieldemol]

Genesis was authored by a human being with limit interpretive ability concerning revelatory information from God. In my opinion the perceived misses are a reflection of the interpretation of the limited abilities of that human being to impart Gods information to others.

I'm not exactly sure of what you are saying here, but it sounds as though you are saying that Moses or whoever you believe authored the scriptures didn't understand what it was they were tasked to convey. And does having limited abilities to convey God's information mean that God has used an incompetent middleman to convey something God could easily have conveyed God's self? That is not very merciful.

? It is a part of scripture. There is a well-established lineage between the themes found in one book of scripture as compared to another found in scripture. For instance the Pentateuch, Torah, etc. hold their origins in Judaism. Christianity is a direct offshoot of said Judaism and uses/references its sacred scriptures and all those scriptures follow a coherent and cohesive unfolding of revelatory history. The quoted is a reflection on the differences in man’s abilities of perception as compared to Gods.

I disagree that all those scriptures are cohesive or coherent, but that is a topic for another thread.

Not allowing such references because they are not found in what they refer to is like not allowing scientific theories which refer to natural processes because they are merely models and not the processes themselves. I'll let your misunderstanding slide for now.

It would be more like not allowing such references because they are contrary to what they refer to.

I thought I explained this. "Days" simply references a delineation in the chronology of the creative event. When Moses was writing genesis and references days it was the most readily understood way of referencing a Chronology of creative events. Mankind related their creative activity by the period between dawn and dusk, a "day". Or by collections of "days". We don't know how long a creative "day" took to do what God did.

Actually we do because Genesis defined it as a morning and an evening. Even if you allow for the day being a thousand years with God coming as it does from a different scripture, this still limits a day as being a thousand years. You are creating your own scripture to claim that it refers to an unspecified period of time when two contradictory specifications have been given.

It always amazes me how people criticize and critique without study and effort to understand.

Irony overload.

The author of genesis was using Hebrew. In Hebrew serpent (transliterated: nachash) simply means a hissing animal or the hiss the animal makes.

In hebrew nachash has a definition. That definition is serpent.
'Strong's Concordance
nachash: a serpent
Original Word: נָחָשׁ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: nachash
Phonetic Spelling: (naw-khawsh')
Definition: a serpent'
Source: Strong's Hebrew: 5175. נָחָשׁ (nachash) -- a serpent

The word is an onomatopoeia. Snakes hiss, lizards hiss, lots of things hiss. Presumably lots of extinct animals hissed. The leviathan in the bible is a synonym for serpent as well. Christian scripture is such that some books might enlighten us on meanings in other books in the bible being tied together into a coherent narrative of the unfolding of revelatory history. Let’s tie it together....

Christian texts are irrelevant to Genesis

The Hebrew word serpent was used in Gen. 3:1. Its meaning leaves a little leeway as to what the animal was.

No it doesn't, it is defined as serpent (see above)

Was the serpent an actual snake? Probably not since the curse laid upon it referenced crawling on its belly and eating dust. Now what kind of curse would that be if you were already doing that? After all snakes don't walk, they don't fly, they crawl...on their belly.

Serpents crawl on their belly precisely, but the curse is explaining why they do that. According to Genesis serpents did not always crawl/have enmity with women etc.

I explain all this "Since you must have missed it" Which makes me wonder what you’re afraid of? It’s been my experience that people who insist on being right all the time are afraid of being wrong some of the time so they resort to sniping, ridiculing, and directly insulting in order to push their point.

Irony overload.

It is demonstrable fact that birds and other animals do not simply mimic, they think.

Sure, all animals with brains think, but that doesn't mean they think in human language terms. Birds mimic. They do not carry out persuasive conversations involving abstract concepts such as knowledge of good and evil.

How do you know how advanced a brain of a particular animal was way back when?

God told me lol. You uncritically accept Moses alleged explanation of his alleged knowledge of how advanced serpents were because you were indoctrinated to believe that God told him.

Any particularly referenced linear evolution of a particular trait of an animal is still speculative at best. Used to be all evolution was thought to be steadily linear then that had to be revised upon discovery of further evidence into spurts and jumps and even reversals at times instead of linearity.

Sure, but in the absence of any fossil or other genetic evidence suggesting that serpents had advanced vocabularies and walked around upright it doesn't make sense to assume they did just because a story told by an ancient says that they did.

And it was animated by the spiritual creature Satan which most certainly can speak.

You haven't demonstrated that Satan even exists let alone that it "most certainly can speak" lol.

?? What isn't magic...You familiar with Arthur C. Clark's quote? "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

It is indistinguishable by anyone unfamiliar with how the technology works, but to one who knows the technology, magic is distinguishable from technology.

What is meant by technology is sufficiently advanced manipulation of nature. So it seems what your saying is that anything you don't understand or don't know how to fit into your worldview is to be dismissed as "magic". Whatever magic means to you. And “magic” can’t happen right?

Sufficently advance manipulation of nature is possible. Saying, "Let there be light" and light popping into existence is not technological manipulation of nature since nature is not operated by voice command in case you haven't noticed.

The probability of these possibilities relies upon their respective purposes. The probability is higher that that Teapot is there if 1) Russell had a reason/desire for putting it there and 2) Russell had the ability for putting it there.

Sure, but you haven't demonstrated that a creator God exists yet. So in this analogy you haven't demonstrated 1A) That Russell exists, 1B) That Russell had a reason/desire for putting it there and 2) Russell had the ability for putting it there. You've just asssumed the lot as you were indoctrinated to do.

If we are discussing the coherent rationality of biblical events with the assumption of an existent God - Reasoning within the bibles claims - then a talking serpent is perfectly reasonable and is rationally coherent within the biblical narrative.

Sure, I mean a talking upright seprent is coherent within the Biblical narrative, but why should we not examine the credibility of the Biblical narrative itself?

If we are questioning the existence of God itself and therefore the biblical narrative which includes this God - reasoning outside of biblical claims - then we are no longer talking about questioning the claims of Genesis. So which are we talking about? Genesis or the existence of God?[/quote]
Well one of the claims of Genesis is that God created the heavens and the earth by talking to nature. So you are mixed up to say we can't reason outside of the Biblical narrative without questioning the claims of Genesis.

I'll leave off with this, as meaningless as it might be to you it means something to me....

..."They have ears, but they don't listen. They have eyes, but they refuse to see. If their minds were not closed, they might see with their eyes; they might hear with their ears; they might understand with their minds."

Irony overload.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes I can post-hoc dubiously rationalise Job 38 as being poet language.
Science does not know where the water on earth came from and Job also does not tell us where it came from, it may have been a comet that smashed into the earth and even buried itself and then overheated and burst forth as Job 38 tells us. Anyway that is how the earth ended up surrounded in thick clouds and darkness. If the Bible taught that darkness was everywhere before the end of day one it would make no sense to say that the earth was wrapped in thick darkness by the clouds.
And notice the poetic language being used.

Job 38:8“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it here. When I point out the literal claims in Job 38 you disclaim it as being poetry that doesn't make any literal claims, then when it comes to verse 9 you want to insist it is making a literal claim. But if Job 38 is poetry with no literal claims then it is irrelevant to Genesis.
In other words you appear to be cherrypicking which parts of Job to take literally on the basis of their convenience to your narrative.

Really? I did not realise that my off the cuff suggestion of night and day might be a sign that God did not do it. I guess I'll go with the idea that the thick clouds cleared up enough for the light to get through and the earth was actually spinning all along.

Ah - the Genesis story changes on the basis of new facts yet again! And we are to believe this was the original story all along lol.

But really it is not so easy to say something shows that God did not do it. It's like a scientist saying that he has been looking at nature all his life and has not seen God or anything that needed a God, so God does not exist. She does not know what needed God and what was natural.

We can see what is natural through observation. As I said we have observed heavenly bodies coming into being.

Personally I think that genes show the need for a God to have initially made the genes into a store of information which can be used but that is another story.

Yes the quackery and pseudoscience of intelligent design do deserve their own thread.

OK, any particular reason? It sounds as if God would be just another creature like any other living thing, presuming you see God as living.

I believe God as existing, but life is a biological process that I don't believe applies to God.

I think God would have had to work with the language and concepts available at the time.

So fallible human scientists are able to invent language and concepts to explain science to school children but the Omnipotent creator of the Universe is not able to? If you can believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

In my opinion.

 

[Brian2]

You appear to be trying to have your cake and eat it here. When I point out the literal claims in Job 38 you disclaim it as being poetry that doesn't make any literal claims, then when it comes to verse 9 you want to insist it is making a literal claim. But if Job 38 is poetry with no literal claims then it is irrelevant to Genesis.
In other words you appear to be cherrypicking which parts of Job to take literally on the basis of their convenience to your narrative.


Ah - the Genesis story changes on the basis of new facts yet again! And we are to believe this was the original story all along lol.


We can see what is natural through observation. As I said we have observed heavenly bodies coming into being.


Yes the quackery and pseudoscience of intelligent design do deserve their own thread.


I believe God as existing, but life is a biological process that I don't believe applies to God.


So fallible human scientists are able to invent language and concepts to explain science to school children but the Omnipotent creator of the Universe is not able to? If you can believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

In my opinion.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[setarcos]

it sounds as though you are saying that Moses or whoever you believe authored the scriptures didn't understand what it was they were tasked to convey.

This is sometimes the case in scripture. Sometimes the instrument of revelation remains ignorant of its meaning until the proper time in the unfolding of history. Often scientists don't understand the results of scientific experimentation until they are later implemented into a developing theory which then gives them some semblance of meaning.

And does having limited abilities to convey God's information mean that God has used an incompetent middleman to convey something God could easily have conveyed God's self? That is not very merciful.

Human beings have been created as finite creatures as has all creating beings by necessity Since only a God can be infinite in any aspect of existence concerning self awareness. Incompetence does not factor into this. If the Christian God exists what makes you think humans should be able to demand of God the method, manner, and timing of his revelatory declarations? Why doesn't God swoop in and speak to each of us in person? I don't know I'm not God. There are many theological theories put forth but we still have to deal with the reality we find ourselves in and our wishes or demands of what God should do or should have done should he actually exist must remain intellectually puerile at best.

Actually we do because Genesis defined it as a morning and an evening.

I've already explained this. Seems your not very interested in plausible explanations but rather stuck on your presumptions that Genesis has to be wrong in its presentation.
Evening represents the end of a creative period and morning the beginning of a new one.
Why do people think they can randomly quote from scripture then assume they understand it all without making an effort? You've probably been exposed to Christian morons touting mistaken or absurd opinions and consider that representative of all Christians and Christianity.
Reading scripture takes effort. It is a journey that can only be taken with sincerity. One must do some sustained study. The bible uses many different literary forms. Prose, poetry, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, idiom, personification, anthropomorphism and yes even literalism. Knowing which is being used sometimes takes a bit of study.

this still limits a day as being a thousand years. You are creating your own scripture to claim that it refers to an unspecified period of time when two contradictory specifications have been given.

Peter is using simile here to emphasize a point. A day is like a thousand years etc. Peter is giving us incite into the discord between how humans experience time and how God relates to chronology.
Ancient mans individual creative period was most readily understood by the period measured from dusk to dawn. The time mans work was accomplished. The reference of evenings and mornings in genesis bridges the gap between mans experience and Gods creative action.

In hebrew nachash has a definition. That definition is serpent.

Come on, make an effort when using reference works.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
serpent
From nachash; a snake (from its hiss) -- serpent.

The term is an onomatopoeia sometimes used to describe a creature with perceived snakelike features not always physical.
Consider:

Brown-Driver-Briggs
I. נָחָשׁ noun masculineGenesis 3:1 serpent (Late Hebrew id.; Arabic

serpent, viper (Lane406anything hunted) is compare by LagM, i, 230; BN 50, 188 BaEs 48, but improbable; Arabic

see below [נָחַשׁ below; on formation compare LagBN 50); — absolute ׳נ Amos 5:19 +; construct נְחַשׁ Numbers 21:9 2t.; plural נְחָשִׁים Numbers 21:6; Jeremiah 8:17; —
1 serpent:
c. ׳נ (apparently) as hissing Jeremiah 46:22 (in simile, compare Gie); as eating dust Isaiah 65:25 compare Micah 7:17 (in simile; see also Genesis 3:14).

d. as crafty tempter Genesis 3:1,2,4,13,14.

The term can also depend on the context within which it is being used.
Consider: The exact same term is used as a proper name in 1 Samuel. Hebrew names often referenced the qualities of the thing they are named after.

Serpents crawl on their belly precisely, but the curse is explaining why they do that. According to Genesis serpents did not always crawl/have enmity with women etc.

Again, you show a misunderstanding of how to read scripture. This is not a story of how the leopard got its spots. The creature obviously existed in some state prior to its being cursed. A curse that creates a state the creature is already in would not be a curse. It would be a description. The curse was not a description of why the creature is the way it is since it is an effect of actions committed by an existent creature not a cause to how the creature was effected. If you allow that genesis is saying that serpents didn't always crawl then you must allow that the use of the word in genesis doesn't quite mean the same thing as you think it does as describing the thing you are familiar with.
I think if you think about this logically for a bit you'll come to a better conclusion than you have.

but that doesn't mean they think in human language terms. Birds mimic.

Not sure what you mean by "human language terms". Your dipping into linguistics and epistemology which can get pretty involved and beyond this thread. Suffice it to say it's not mimicry because they occasionally demonstrate unique and unpredictable but useful action with meaningful correlations to human input.
If I ask you to make a choice and you do how are you mimicking me? While any form of communication may include mimicry it does not always preclude mimicry. Also mimicry itself may demonstrate intelligent communication between species.

They do not carry out persuasive conversations involving abstract concepts such as knowledge of good and evil.

So what? Its been demonstrated that some animals are capable of abstract thinking. The fact that none have used this capability in lengthy conversations with humans about these lofty ideas demonstrates nothing conclusive other than how arrogant humans can be.

You uncritically accept Moses alleged explanation of his alleged knowledge of how advanced serpents were because you were indoctrinated to believe that God told him.

Wrong. I'm often very critical. The study of scripture is no exception. Your being too shallow in your analysis of how I conclude or accept anything. Its a process. Knowledge evolves over time. Opinions change. Its a journey and takes sustained effort, energy, sincerity and self reflection of motivation. We are all indoctrinated to some extent. If God wills it recognition of our indoctrination is the first step towards truth.

Sure, but in the absence of any fossil or other genetic evidence suggesting that serpents had advanced vocabularies and walked around upright it doesn't make sense to assume they did just because a story told by an ancient says that they did.

This may be a mute point since it seems you've not completely understood or used the literary tools of biblical analysis and scholarly opinion.

You haven't demonstrated that Satan even exists let alone that it "most certainly can speak" lol.

Sometimes I wonder why I make the effort only to be laughed at. I can't possibly imagine the patience God must be able to sustain with us.
This isn't an argument about Gods or Satan's existence. That is a different argument. The argument concerns Genesis in the context within which the book is used. In Genesis Satan speaks and spoke as a serpent. I don't have to prove he did, its in the narrative. Either we're discussing Genesis with the presumptive axiom that God exists or we are discussing whether the Christian God exists irrespective of what Genesis says which is a different thread. Make up your mind.

It is indistinguishable by anyone unfamiliar with how the technology works, but to one who knows the technology, magic is distinguishable from technology.

What I'm saying is that the term magic can and is applied to anything mankind doesn't yet or can never know the mechanisms by which it operates.
Depending on the framework in which you are relating to reality magic may be replaced by knowledge or understanding to degrees but
we can never personally know the fundamental nature of reality. It will always remain "magic" to us and we can never know the point at which magic must remain magic. This includes perceived supernatural phenomena and metaphysics.

Saying, "Let there be light" and light popping into existence is not technological manipulation of nature since nature is not operated by voice command in case you haven't noticed.

And yet quantum fluctuations allow for the "popping" in and out of existence of molecules. What or if these fluctuating particles are random or controlled in some manner hasn't been or may never be proven.
In case you weren't aware

 

[setarcos]

Sure, but you haven't demonstrated that a creator God exists yet.

I can't, I don't need to, and this thread is not concerned with such proof as explained earlier.

So in this analogy you haven't demonstrated 1A) That Russell exists, 1B) That Russell had a reason/desire for putting it there and 2) Russell had the ability for putting it there. You've just asssumed the lot as you were indoctrinated to do.

No, I was working within your given parameters of this thought experiment. There's a difference.

but why should we not examine the credibility of the Biblical narrative itself?

I thought we were given the parameters and framework within which we were referring.

Well one of the claims of Genesis is that God created the heavens and the earth by talking to nature. So you are mixed up to say we can't reason outside of the Biblical narrative without questioning the claims of Genesis.

Not quite.
I've explained this...If you are questioning the claims of Genesis by questioning the claim of an existent God then you are not questioning the claims of Genesis. Genesis makes no claim of a proof of God. It gives a narrative of the activities of a presumed existent God. In arguing about the narrative of Genesis you cannot be arguing about the existence of God since it makes no reference to proving God exists.
Lets assume we are discussing the activities of a character out of literature such as Sherlock Holmes. One of us questions the possibility of the activities of the character by claiming a faulty timeline with the events taking place. It is shown that Sherlock Holmes couldn't have been pursuing Professor Moriarty across the English Moors at 10:00 am if he was said to be studying tobacco ash at 221 B. Baker street in London at 9:55 am on the same day. We presume the abilities of Sherlock Holmes as a human being and the tools available to him in making our claim of the narrative being impossibly flawed. Our claim does not rely on proving Holmes exists or existed; some claim claim he did. Whether or not Holmes exists in reality is irrelevant to the claims within the narrative because the narrative claims no proof of Holmes existence. That's not its purpose. Its purpose is to merely present a narrative of the activities of Holmes over a certain period of time.
And this irony overload thing is just a means of avoiding reflecting upon what's being said. If you agree or agree that its important to reflect upon then typing "Irony overload" in an effort to diminish or render the statement meaningless is sadly misplaced.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Evening represents the end of a creative period and morning the beginning of a new one.

How creative of you.