Got doubts about Genesis?

[setarcos]

How creative of you.

I'm not sure if this is a criticism of my opinion or merely a critique? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure if this is a criticism of my opinion or merely a critique? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis?

No, I have a different faith. So I will accept that you have yours as long as you accept mine as mine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not sure if this is a criticism of my opinion or merely a critique? Do you agree or disagree with my analysis?

I think it's verbose, pretentious, sophomoric drivel, but I respect your right to promote it as "analysis."

 

[setarcos]

I think it's verbose, pretentious, sophomoric drivel, but I respect your right to promote it as "analysis."

Wow....that's quite aggressive and bespeaks of a trollish character who's wisdom is lacking in their own faith when dealing with other human beings. How old are you? Two? However as I am a patient man and interested in pursuing truth wherever it may lead I'd love to discuss this further with you since you claim to be Jewish and I'm sure your incites into Genesis would be worth listening to. Unless your simply ignorant in your faith, lack decent character and wish only to belittle other peoples opinions?
Promote it as "analysis"? Are you aware of what analysis means? It may be incorrect analysis but your misusing the word in conjunction with promotion. An analysis has taken place by definition. One doesn't promote something as analysis one promotes analysis of something in these cases.
I would think someone who accuses another's analysis as sophomoric drivel would know the difference.

 

[setarcos]

No, I have a different faith. So I will accept that you have yours as long as you accept mine as mine.

? I wasn't responding to you but that's okay. You deserve respect as a person. I don't know what your faith is so I can't say I respect it until I do. If your faith is in child sacrifice producing desired benefits then I can't respect that for instance.
What does "Aspie" sibling mean?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

? I wasn't responding to you but that's okay. You deserve respect as a person. I don't know what your faith is so I can't say I respect it until I do. If your faith is in child sacrifice producing desired benefits then I can't respect that for instance.
What does "Aspie" sibling mean?

I am neuro diverse.

As for my religion it is a form of deism and secular humanism.

 

[setarcos]

Ahh IC....Aspie=Asperger's ?
Nice to meet you. Hope your days going well. Mines been a struggle.
Deism combined with secular humanism would be an interesting topic of discussion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you aware of what analysis means?

In fact, yes.

 

[danieldemol]

Incompetence does not factor into this.

Your mere assertion is wishful thinking

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?

It is not human demands that determine this, it is the alleged nature of God as merciful that demands this

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?

Irony overload.
Genesis 2:3 says, 'Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.'

Exodus 20:9-11 confirms this;
' Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

So if we don't know how long a "day" took then how are the Jews to know how long to work for and how long to rest for? If day = unspecified measurable time period then the Jews would not have a clue about how long the six days of work were to last or how long to rest for. You make your God's commandment meaningless by interpreting day = unspecified measurable time period.

You've probably been exposed to Christian morons touting mistaken or absurd opinions and consider that representative of all Christians and Christianity.

I don't consider any one Christian view as representative of all Christians, nor do I consider any Christian view as representative of the original author/(s) of Genesis who were certainly not Christians.

Reading scripture takes effort. It is a journey that can only be taken with sincerity.

Sure, but honesty is a part of 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.

Sure, but delving into the imagination of post-hoc rationalisers does not constitute "study".

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.

The author of Peter is a post-hoc rationaliser.

Come on, make an effort when using reference works.

Like reading in that list that it says over and over that it is a serpent? I have taken the liberty of underlining what you missed reading below;

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

...
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.

So the concordance is saying it is a serpent as hissing in Jeremiah 46:22 and it is a serpent as crafty tempter in Genesis 3:1 etc.

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.

I don't know which chapter and verse you are referring to, but sure Hebrew names may reference the qualities of the thing they are named after, so long as you understand that in this particular instance (Genesis 3:1) it is a serpent it is named after and derives it's qualites from.

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.

Sure it does, it describes an upright serpent being cursed to become a crawling serpent.
You don't change into another creature when you crawl around on your hands and knees. You are misusing the word 'logically' here. The correct word would be 'nonsensically'.

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.

Actually what really demonstrates the arrogance of humans is when they assume their indoctrinated stories are exclusively true whilst the stories others are indoctrinated into are false. Why should I give a talking serpent any more credibility than a rainbow serpent making the tracks which became rivers after she tickled the bellies of all the frogs causing them to regurgitate the water of the rivers of the world?

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.

So what other than indoctrination lead you to believe in a Satan? Or the certainty that a serpent once spoke?

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.

Biblical analysis or analysis of any other tale of the ancients is the complete wrong tool for evaluating whether there is any corroborating evidence for the story in question. It is to biologists, geologists, etc that we should be turning for independant evidence.

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.

You don't get to dictate what the thread is about. The thread is about my and other people's doubts about Genesis. If people doubt Genesis because it describes a creator and people doubt that a creator exists then the thread is about that. If people doubt Genesis because it describes Satan (technically it doesn't describe Satan, but that is beside the point here) then the thread is about that.

And yet quantum fluctuations allow for the "popping" in and out of existence of molecules.

Citation required.

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

It may not be proven, but proof may be an impossibly high bar to clear. In the abscence of proof the maths suggests the reality we get from quantum probabilities is random.

Besides, we don't hear God saying "Let there be light" every time a photon pops into existence, which suggests it is just something that happens due to the properties of the quantum world and not due to voice command as Genesis claims.

In my opinion.

 

[setarcos]

In fact, yes.

According to what you've written I still have my doubts.
But lets assume you do. I would then kindly ask you, if you can, to keep that in mind while you type out your next childish observation and insult without any semblance of intelligent rebuff. Much appreciated.

 

[Muffled]

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

So what are your doubts about Genesis?

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

In my opinion

I doubt original sin and a world wide flood.

 

[Muffled]

Most mainstream Christian denominations have no doubts about Genesis, having treated it allegorically for centuries.

I doubt I have ever heard that from a mainstream church.

 

[Muffled]

The Archangel?

I believe it certainly wouldn't be Jesus because He is not an angel.

 

[exchemist]

I doubt I have ever heard that from a mainstream church.

Well, if you talk, for example, to any decent Episcopalian or Catholic priest, or Methodist minister, that is what they will tell you.

 

[setarcos]

Your mere assertion is wishful thinking

good grief...okay since you've claimed a man incompetent wouldn't it first be prudent of you to prove that incompetence? If anything your wishful thinking on how you read scripture begs you to prove your competence. I defy you to point me to a biography of Moses which claims the man to be incompetent.
And why are we denigrating into insulting accusations? Is that how you generally attempt to prove you’re correct in discussions? Why is my point of view so offensive and threatening to you?

it is the alleged nature of God as merciful that demands this

Dipping into the nature of God may deserve another thread to do it justice but this is okay with me, it’s all connected anyway.
So, what about a merciful God gives man the right to demand of it anything? I think your misunderstanding the nature of God and mercy.
Mercy does not equate to the prevention of evil. God’s mercy is the withholding of punishment (consequence) when punishment is justly deserved. And the manner and method of Gods mercy is determined by God alone. Mercy is not our right. It is a benefit. And before you go off on claiming that a merciful God wouldn’t allow suffering to begin with, suffice it to say that such a God could not have a merciful nature in the first place. No evil, no mercy. If Gods nature is merciful then to exist in reality through the expression of his nature would require a reality that included evil. An evil that could be overcome only by that Gods mercy and grace. Actually, a perfected reality absent of all evil would be, ironically, evidence of that Gods non-existence.

Irony overload.

Your making this phrase clichéd, trite, and hackneyed.

Genesis 2:3 says, 'Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.'

God by definition does not need to rest in any meaningful sense of the term. God instilled in humankind the ability to rationalize and reason with which we can use to seek wisdom. God often uses reflections of reality to teach wisdom to man. The resting here means God ceased creating. Another phrase indicating a delineating point between what came before and what came after. Again the “day” does not here designate a literal 24 hours that God rested since the ceasing of creation took no time, it simply stopped.
“accurate translation of Shavat is "abstained," i.e., "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because He abstained from all His work which God created to make" (Gen. 2:4). Nachmanides (12th century) interpreted these words to mean "he ceased to perform all His creative work." From “The Jewish Virtual Library”
It is important to note that the main function of this verse was to sanctify a day of rest for man. Man works and man is given to rest. Another reflection of man being in the image of God. Mark 2:27 bears this out. There are depths of truth in the bible. The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath because man needs rest God does not and God is sanctifying rest for man as good. Another reflection of reality.
Exodus is reflecting Genesis in order to tie in how man’s image was created to reflect Gods truth.

So if we don't know how long a "day" took then how are the Jews to know how long to work for and how long to rest for?

Jews most certainly did know how long a day took…for man. They set their lives and activities by it.
Look….the chronology of time is ineffectual to God. God “spoke” and it happened. God created and it was. The experience of time is for man not God. By definition it would be nonsensical to say that God needed a specific amount of time to create. Either God exists and can create or it doesn’t and can’t. In either case time is inconsequential to the act. The days are meant to delineate periods of creative events by God in order to give man a process through which he may relate to creation linearly in time. The way that man experiences reality. Genesis could have simply said God created and everything popped into existence all at once but that does not reflect how man relates to reality nor how man has to relate to God.
Like man is an image of God but not God, the days are an image of time but not Gods time.

You make your God's commandment meaningless by interpreting day = unspecified measurable time period.

Not at all, the length of time was less important than that a period of creation had taken place within time. Creation was a process in time with humankind elevated to the pinnacle of its purpose. Genesis narrates this process by delineating its creative periods with days. It is through man’s daily labor that the image of God’s creativity is reflected in man’s endeavors.
We see in Hebrew (Strong’s) that a day can be expressed as “1b2) as a division of time”, (pl.) 1d) time, period (general) “, or simply “1f) temporal references” etc. , which I believe is the case.

nor do I consider any Christian view as representative of the original author/(s) of Genesis who were certainly not Christians.

Christianity was predicted and predicated upon understanding Judaism and its texts. Jesus was Jewish and quoted from the Old Testament often. The study and interpretation of which was critical in the evolution of Christianity out of Judaism.

Sure, but honesty is a part of sincerity.

That is a given. Are you suggesting I am not being honest somehow? Honesty and sincerity does not ensure accuracy in portraying what is true. Both of us can be honest but wrong. I am taking it as a given that you are being honest in what you believe as I would hope you do me.

delving into the imagination of post-hoc rationalisers does not constitute "study".

It seems as if you’re denigrating imagination’s use in rationalizing. Wasn’t it Einstein that said “Imagination is more powerful than knowledge.”? It has its uses. Anyway what constitutes study for you then that’s different from what the biblical scholars do?

The author of Peter is a post-hoc rationaliser.

And in saying this you are guilty of the fallacy of begging the question.
Can you elaborate on why you believe this to be true?
Do you believe that the use of simile is a logical fallacy?
It’s not a fallacy to rationally analyze a sequence of events. The fact that one thing precedes another in one’s analysis is not itself a fallacy. Neither is presuming that the preceding caused the succeeding when that analysis can be shown to be rationally derived. If it were then all of science and every scientist would be guilty of logical fallacy.

that list that it says over and over that it is a serpent?

You will notice I hope that the list indicates that the term can mean things other than a literal snake such as one you may be familiar with. Textual analysis tools help scholars determine in which context the term is to be used. Keeping that in mind, the snake (serpent) portrayed tempting Eve was probably not a snake you would be familiar with today.

 

[setarcos]

that list that it says over and over that it is a serpent?

You will notice I hope that the list indicates that the term can mean things other than a literal snake such as one you may be familiar with. Textual analysis tools help scholars determine in which context the term is to be used. Keeping that in mind, the snake (serpent) portrayed tempting Eve was probably not a snake you would be familiar with today.

I don't know which chapter and verse you are referring to

1 Samuel 11 “1Soon Nahasha the Ammonite came up and laid siege to Jabesh-gilead. All the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treatyb with us, and we will serve you.”

Nahash –literally serpent – was here the king of the Ammonites.

The term serpent in the bible is a common motif that often is meant to express the qualities of the thing without literally being that thing.

so long as you understand that in this particular instance (Genesis 3:1) it is a serpent it is named after and derives it's qualites from.

?? I thought that was the point? Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? The perceived or imagined qualities of a serpent or snake being applied to something does not make that something literally that snake.

Sure it does, it describes an upright serpent

Um…obviously the change is a qualitative one with the curse. Something literally or more accurately figuratively changed the creature. What do you mean by upright? What does it mean to say that a serpent prefers to be upright as its means of mobility?

You are misusing the word 'logically' here. The correct word would be 'nonsensically'.

J Yes…someone’s certainly being nonsensical it seems.

Why should I give a talking serpent any more credibility than a rainbow serpent making the tracks which became rivers after she tickled the bellies of all the frogs causing them to regurgitate the water of the rivers of the world?

Good question. I would say the credibility you apply depends on understanding the language being used, whether its literal or figurative, its purpose, your experience of the creatures and events being described, the statements rational coherency, and the application of what mankind has provably discovered in opposition to what is being depicted in the events.

I would say belief cannot stand in the presence of a provable false narrative. However faith might stand in the presence of an as yet unproven rationalization.

So what other than indoctrination lead you to believe in a Satan?

Study, listening to those wiser than myself, experience of the world, and faith in that as yet unproven rationalization. My conception of what Satan might be is still evolving but I can rationalize intelligence beyond what is merely physical. I can rationalize evil in the world. I can rationalize the hypothesis of an existent creator and I can theorize what all that means. I can also rationalize the similarities other religions have in common and I can rationally analyze what those religions say about the reality we experience.

Or the certainty that a serpent once spoke?

I am not certain of that at all. I have faith based in rational analysis that the biblical narrative has wisdom to impart concerning our experienced reality though.

It is to biologists, geologists, etc that we should be turning for independant evidence.

Independent evidence sure but only in their own lane so to speak. The connection between what is being depicted in scripture as it relates to what is known of reality must of necessity include a scholarly analysis of that depiction.

Science has its use as a tool but also limitations in understanding reality so we must utilize more than just that tool.

You don't get to dictate what the thread is about.

I didn’t you did.

If people doubt Genesis because it describes a creator and people doubt that a creator exists then the thread is about that.

You missed the point I think. If you don’t think a creator God exists than it’s a moot point to critique a book that assumes it does. If you don’t believe in Gods existence then that is a barrier to any meaningful discussion of Genesis. Your argument then is not with Genesis it is with proving the existence of God. Think about this being circular reasoning. People doubt Genesis because Genesis depicts a creator and people doubt a creator because of what genesis says. People also doubt Satan because Satan is in Genesis which people doubt because Genesis assumes God which people doubt because God is in Genesis which people doubt and round and round you go. That is what I meant.

We are either discussing the existence of God or we are discussing the rational coherence of Genesis assuming an existent God.

What you might be able to prove is that Genesis is not rationally coherent with the given of an existent God. What that would show is that Genesis couldn’t be correctly depicting reality even given the assumption of its Gods existence.

Citation required.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-01_NutshellReadmore.html

Friday, Feb. 1, 2013

At the quantum level, matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into existence and popping back out, with an electron-positron pair here and a top quark-antiquark pair there.

Fermilab Today

In the abscence of proof the maths suggests the reality we get from quantum probabilities is random.

And yet somehow we get a coherent and consistent experience of reality. Hmm…

we don't hear God saying "Let there be light" every time a photon pops into existence,

Why would you think you would or could? Again I think you’re being too literal in your reading of scripture here.

which suggests it is just something that happens due to the properties of the quantum world and not due to voice command as Genesis claims.

How does not being able to hear God sustain or create reality translate in any conceivable way into suggesting how the quantum world works or why it works that way? You’re losing me here.

 

[setarcos]

I doubt original sin and a world wide flood.

Why?

 

[exchemist]

Why?

The geological evidence is that there was never such a flood, and there is not enough water on the planet to provide one anyway.

 

[danieldemol]

good grief...okay since you've claimed a man incompetent wouldn't it first be prudent of you to prove that incompetence?

It's your God I'm claiming is incompetent, by sending a man who you claim didn't understand the message in spite of having the direct line to God to ask God any clarifying questions needed to understand it. In fact it would be perfectly logical of God to check that the one they were tasking to convey a weighty message understood it then correct them where their understanding is incorrect.

I defy you to point me to a biography of Moses which claims the man to be incompetent.

I defy you to point me to anything which could reliably be called a biography of Moses.

Why is my point of view so offensive and threatening to you?

It is not at all a threat to me as I largely don't live in a society informed by theocratic ideas derived from a belief in the infallibility of manmade texts.

Mercy does not equate to the prevention of evil. God’s mercy is the withholding of punishment (consequence) when punishment is justly deserved.

If God created us the way we are then any faults are design faults and it is God who justly deserves punishment for them if anyone. You can't make a pot black then punish it for being black.

Mercy is not our right. It is a benefit.

If it is a benefit and God is just God will benefit all equally, if God is a tyrant who creates people a certain way then punishes certain of them at God's whim for being the way they are made then God is not just.

And before you go off on claiming that a merciful God wouldn’t allow suffering to begin with, suffice it to say that such a God could not have a merciful nature in the first place. No evil, no mercy.

That's a non-sequitur, God could have a merciful nature if there was no evil, there would simply be no need to exercise that nature, but that wouldn't prevent God from having that nature. For example if a person is naturally patient, they are going to be patient regardless of whether they are put in a testing situation that requires them to exercise patience or not.

Your making this phrase clichéd, trite, and hackneyed.

There you go with your wishful thinking again

God by definition does not need to rest in any meaningful sense of the term...
...The resting here means God ceased creating.

You are contradicting yourself, earlier you said Quantum foam is God causing molecules to pop in and out of existence. That is something that has occured for as long as spacetime itself has existed and continues to occur. So according to that claim God is still creating. God cannot be both currently creating, and have ceased creating. See what happens when you attempt to post-hoc rationalise? You are attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole.

...Again the “day” does not here designate a literal 24 hours that God rested since the ceasing of creation took no time, it simply stopped...
...It is important to note that the main function of this verse was to sanctify a day of rest for man.

So you are cherrypicking the same word in the same story to mean an unspecified time period for God *and* a literal 24 hours for man. Cherrypicking meaning is hardly a sign of sincerity.

Either God exists and can create or it doesn’t and can’t.

Thats a false dichotomy, there are other options eg God exists but chooses not to intervene in the material realm.

Christianity was predicted and predicated upon understanding Judaism and its texts.

Word salad, Christianity was "predicted" "upon understanding Judaism"?
If you are trying to say Christianity was predicted in Judaism it wasn't. If you are trying to point out that Christianity was based upon Judaism that would be true, but it would be based on *mis*understanding Judaism and it's texts.

The study and interpretation of which was critical in the evolution of Christianity out of Judaism.

Thank you for acknowledging that it was an evolutionary offshoot. Evolution implies change.

It seems as if you’re denigrating imagination’s use in rationalizing. Wasn’t it Einstein that said “Imagination is more powerful than knowledge.”?

One may use imagination to explore the stranger quirks of reality (which Einstein was referring to), or they may use imagination to avoid facing reality (such as is done by post-hoc rationalisers). Einstein was not praising the later in the slightest.

Anyway what constitutes study for you then that’s different from what the biblical scholars do?

Nothing, those who are worthy of the title of "Scholars" consider Genesis to be myth as far as I'm aware

Can you elaborate on why you believe this to be true?

Because a word can't both mean a thousand years of man's time and a day of man's time in the same place in the same context.

Neither is presuming that the preceding caused the succeeding when that analysis can be shown to be rationally derived.

Sure, but you haven't shown it to be anything other than the product of imagination with no correlation to the original story at all.

You will notice I hope that the list indicates that the term can mean things other than a literal snake such as one you may be familiar with. Textual analysis tools help scholars determine in which context the term is to be used. Keeping that in mind, the snake (serpent) portrayed tempting Eve was probably not a snake you would be familiar with today.

Acknowledging textual analysis tools exist then casting them aside to present the product of imagination unfettered by the constraints of reality and/or textual analysis is irrelevant. Their are only two ways listed in Genesis in which the serpent was different to the serpents we find today.
1) It was upright
2) It could engage in advanced human forms of communication.

The list says over and over that Genesis3:1 refers to a serpent.

To be continued.
In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

1 Samuel 11 “1Soon Nahasha the Ammonite came up and laid siege to Jabesh-gilead. All the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treatyb with us, and we will serve you.”

Nahash –literally serpent – was here the king of the Ammonites.

?? I thought that was the point? Isn’t that what I’ve been saying? The perceived or imagined qualities of a serpent or snake being applied to something does not make that something literally that snake.

I'm pressed for time and had to type hastily, I meant to write your 1 Samuel 11 reference was the particular instance of something being named after a serpent and deriving it's qualities from the serpent.

What do you mean by upright?

If we are to take word's to mean what they actually mean upright means vertically orientated.

I would say belief cannot stand in the presence of a provable false narrative. However faith might stand in the presence of an as yet unproven rationalization.

Thats a total non-answer to the question, what other than the arrogance of believing your indoctrination is true to the exclusiviity of all other peoples indoctrination leads you to believe in your creation story over all other creation stories, or do you simultaneously believe that the universe starting out as a cosmic egg, the result of Shiva's dance etc are simply as yet un-proven rationalisations?

Study, listening to those wiser than myself, experience of the world, and faith in that as yet unproven rationalization. My conception of what Satan might be is still evolving but I can rationalize intelligence beyond what is merely physical. I can rationalize evil in the world. I can rationalize the hypothesis of an existent creator and I can theorize what all that means.

It is indoctrination that leads you to believe that it is an "as yet unproven rationalisation" as opposed to the more parsimonious explanation that it was man's best guess of how we got here in the abscence of the tools we have at our disposal.

I can also rationalize the similarities other religions have in common and I can rationally analyze what those religions say about the reality we experience.

Can you also rationalise the obvious differences in those religions such as Judaism not having a Satan that rebelled against God?

Independent evidence sure but only in their own lane so to speak. The connection between what is being depicted in scripture as it relates to what is known of reality must of necessity include a scholarly analysis of that depiction.

You haven't used any scholarly analysis. Only the oxymoron called religious analysis which is just religion trying to wear the guise of analysis could be used to describe what you have been doing.

From wikipedia

'20th-century scholars such as W. O. E. Oesterley (1921) were cognizant of the differences between the role of the Edenic serpent in the Hebrew Bible and its connections with the "ancient serpent" in the New Testament.[29] Modern historiographers of Satan such as Henry Ansgar Kelly (2006) and Wray and Mobley (2007) speak of the "evolution of Satan",[30] or "development of Satan".[31]

According to Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament scholar, Lutheran theologian and University of Heidelberg professor, who applied form criticism as a supplement to the documentary hypothesis of the Hebrew Bible, the snake in the Eden's narrative was more an expedient to represent the impulse to temptation of mankind (that is, disobeying God's law) rather than an evil spirit or the personification of the Devil, as the later Christian literature erroneously depicted it; moreover, von Rad himself states that the snake is neither a supernatural being nor a demon, but one of the wild animals created by God (Genesis 3:1), and the only thing that differentiates it from the others in Eden is the ability to speak'

Source: Serpents in the Bible - Wikipedia

Science has its use as a tool but also limitations in understanding reality so we must utilize more than just that tool.

What is the limitation of science that a tale of the ancients doesn't have?

Think about this being circular reasoning. People doubt Genesis because Genesis depicts a creator and people doubt a creator because of what genesis says.

That is a strawman, one need not doubt a creator because genesis says there is a creator, it is enough that the evidence is not there where it would be expected to be.

https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-01_NutshellReadmore.html

Friday, Feb. 1, 2013

At the quantum level, matter and antimatter particles are constantly popping into existence and popping back out, with an electron-positron pair here and a top quark-antiquark pair there.

Fermilab Today

Where does that mention the *molecules* popping into and out of existence?

And yet somehow we get a coherent and consistent experience of reality. Hmm…

I doubt you could explain why random quantum probabilites would prevent us getting a coherent and consistent experience of reality without slipping into word-salad, so I'm not even going to ask.

Why would you think you would or could? Again I think you’re being too literal in your reading of scripture here.

Genesis says, "God said", which is an admission of speech, additionally according to the story God's speech is audible (we know because Adam heard God speaking). You are creating your own Genesis to add God *inaudibly* said, "Let their be light".

In my opinion