Is Genesis True?

[Thief]

Well. If you (all) don't challenge it and just throw it like an opinion to attack christians instead, it's a waste of time. Facts are facts.

Everyone has their own truths...so if truth is fact and facts don't change, how can two beliefs be considered facts when they contradict each other? (Going by truth is fact)

truth is what you believe.....that's a fact

but what you believe might have no reality in it

when the beliefs sway left and right.....we debate

 

[Unveiled Artist]

truth is what you believe.....that's a fact

but what you believe might have no reality in it

when the beliefs sway left and right.....we debate

Shrugs. None of our beliefs probably have any reality in it. We may not think so individually and hold our personal opinions, but all are still illusions to what is fact. I think there might be a quote on this saying humans live in what they think is true but in fact it's all delusions. I saw a YouTube video on something similar.

 

[sealchan]

Another comparison between the Genesis flood story and Sumarian flood story.
View attachment 25412

Ah, facts supporting the literary basis of Genesis. I should produce a similar chart for Genesis and the Mahabharata.

 

[sealchan]

truth is what you believe.....that's a fact

but what you believe might have no reality in it

when the beliefs sway left and right.....we debate

Another way to say this is to use the terms subjective and objective truth. The trick, of course, is that a group can be under the spell of illusion while an individual, in possession of facts unknown to others, may be correct.

Myths are a societies givens, their axiomatic ideas whose reality is unquestionable but still mysterious. They are essential ideas that cannot be disregarded in public discourse. They are collectively objective, but individually they are more subjective. But scientific truths with their ability to he lodged in repeatable experience are difficult to mythologize due to their impersonal character, but they can be technologized.

 

[Thief]

Another way to say this is to use the terms subjective and objective truth. The trick, of course, is that a group can be under the spell of illusion while an individual, in possession of facts unknown to others, may be correct.

Myths are a societies givens, their axiomatic ideas whose reality is unquestionable but still mysterious. They are essential ideas that cannot be disregarded in public discourse. They are collectively objective, but individually they are more subjective. But scientific truths with their ability to he lodged in repeatable experience are difficult to mythologize due to their impersonal character, but they can be technologized.

so to reason.....I am not top of the line life form.....
and though I have no evidence to support that 'truth'

I remain firm to the notion i may be subject to Something Greater

and here in this forum we are having public discourse about that item

Genesis.....the beginning.....
is more about God than history or 'evidence'

and the effect we call the universe (one word) seems to point to Something Greater

true?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

so to reason.....I am not top of the line life form.....
and though I have no evidence to support that 'truth'

I remain firm to the notion i may be subject to Something Greater

and here in this forum we are having public discourse about that item

Genesis.....the beginning.....
is more about God than history or 'evidence'

and the effect we call the universe (one word) seems to point to Something Greater

true?

How did you put the beginning to something greater? I love my art just as I love myself since its an expression of myself but it isn't something greator.

Also, does there need to be heirarchy to threat the beginning apart from yourself? (And why would you?)

 

[Thief]

How did you put the beginning to something greater? I love my art just as I love myself since its an expression of myself but it isn't something greator.

Also, does there need to be heirarchy to threat the beginning apart from yourself? (And why would you?)

you know the Artist by the creation

and yes we have hierarchy in this life
and Greater Hierarchy in the next

 

[Unveiled Artist]

you know the Artist by the creation

and yes we have hierarchy in this life
and Greater Hierarchy in the next

How so?

We can say this is true or what something is but actually demonstrating why it's true and how is totally different.

How do I know there is an artist by creation. The art and artist (Me) are not seperate. There is no heirarchy splitting me in half.

Where is the heirarchy in life outside our societal definitions that vary by culture?

 

[Thief]

How so?

We can say this is true or what something is but actually demonstrating why it's true and how is totally different.

How do I know there is an artist by creation. The art and artist (Me) are not seperate. There is no heirarchy splitting me in half.

Where is the heirarchy in life outside our societal definitions that vary by culture?

are you asking for an introduction to the Almighty?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

are you asking for an introduction to the Almighty?

I don't know what an almighty is. You (all) give it proper nouns and descriptions but actually defining it, y'all come up short.

How do you demonstrate there is a creator "almighty" to creation? (Creation isn't a good word; nature just is apart from human labels)

Where is heirarchy outside societal definitions of such?

I honestly do not know. Never was raised with this. No one has broke down what the nature of god just what he does, says and represents.

 

[Vee]

Is there a real truth to the underlying theme portrayed through these symbolic characters, Adam and Eve, that is captured faithfully in the myth of the Garden of Eden?

Those who believe in the Bible see it as true, those who don't believe in the Bible see it as fiction.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I just answered a couple people in my last two posts right before yours here I'm replying to if you jump back and look. I think I explained it pretty well in those. I could think of more, but I just finished those and need to take a break.

Posts 132 and 134 both are pretty good I think.

Sorry, but that makes no sense to me. Personally I'm very fortunate to still be connected with the one who gave me birth. Nor do I comprehend your reasoning for assuming that at some point in our past we felt absolutely grounded and connected to the earth.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I very much agree. I just posted to someone else that it's a "timeless story", which is what a myth is. It leaps out of history because it speaks to the state of conditions of what and who we are. Everyone can relate to it.

The only thing to add is that specifically is what makes it true. Its timeless truth that carries it from age to age. That is what it seems many miss and mistake in conflating the accuracy of details in trying to make it historical facts. That utterly guts out, kills, stomps on, and squishes between the toes any of the timeless qualities of it. It kills God, in other words. Literalists, must really just hate God.

I don't know why people take it literally. Noone takes Lord of the Rings as a literally true story. It's story line is just as much a tale of human existence, good vs evil and the tribulations and triumphs of human condition as the bible. Funny how one got turned into an inerrant truth and the other remains a mythical story.

In fact, if people would just take the lessons out of all holy books and apply them to themselves and forget about being the right religion with the inerrant truth and judging all others or trying to "save them", we would all be better off. But of course, that is just too much to ask of humans.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know why people take it literally. Noone takes Lord of the Rings as a literally true story. It's story line is just as much a tale of human existence, good vs evil and the tribulations and triumphs of human condition as the bible. Funny how one got turned into an inerrant truth and the other remains a mythical story.

In fact, if people would just take the lessons out of all holy books and apply them to themselves and forget about being the right religion with the inerrant truth and judging all others or trying to "save them", we would all be better off. But of course, that is just too much to ask of humans.

Good to see you again, we seem to cross paths quite by accident.

 

[Baladas]

Ah, I wasn't necessarily thinking the Sky Father / Earth Mother archetype (but in retrospect, I realize giving examples like Dievs and Mara probably gave that impression), but rather a general trend in ancient religion where the sky based deities (including Sky Father archetypes but also storm gods and the like) tended to be male, and the more terrestrial (including fertility, hearth, and harvest deities) tended to be female.

The Tiamat/Apsu dichotomy is a different thing, I think, probably in reference to the Persian Gulf (where sweet and salt water meet). Even though Tiamat was the goddess of salt water, she still is terrestrial in that Marduk formed the earth from her body, but she's also celestial as Marduk formed the heavens from her as well, so she is not a deity that is found within the Earth/Sky dichotomy but rather is probably the Babylonian version of the Order / Chaos dichotomy being the beginning of creation (Norse Ginnungagap, for another example of that).

I'd think of as Ishtar (as you mentioned governing fertility) and Ninkasi (governing grain and beer) being prime examples of the Female Earth / Male Sky general mythological trend showing itself within the Babylonian sphere.

Oh, I see. There definitely a clear trend, yes (although the Ugaritic Baal's position as a ruler/storm/fertility/harvest god is an exception that comes to mind). Those are all good points about Babylonian myth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course. It's what truth is inspired in the reader. Is it a higher truth, then it's symbolic. Is it a "lower truth", then it's a descriptor of facts. Symbolism is about rising above the current mode of thought, not cementing it into facts. This is what metaphors do. They point to something greater than themselves, a "finger pointing at the moon" as it were, not a descriptor of the moon itself.

I have read this entire thread and reread some select posts and I am still not certain I fully understand what you mean by symbolic truth. As near as I can determine, based on your comments and those of others, it appears as if you mean symbolic truth to be subjective truth as opposed to objective truth. Would this be correct or am I nowhere near to understanding than before I started writing this post?

 

[Thief]

I don't know what an almighty is. You (all) give it proper nouns and descriptions but actually defining it, y'all come up short.

bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced

cannot be pushed aside, circumvented, subdued, tricked or cheated

Almighty

and in the scheme of hierarchy.....Someone will be the Almighty

to avoid that Item.......

follow your body into the box
and the box into the grave

eternal darkness is the only escape

 

[Unveiled Artist]

bigger, faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced

cannot be pushed aside, circumvented, subdued, tricked or cheated

Almighty

and in the scheme of hierarchy.....Someone will be the Almighty

to avoid that Item.......

follow your body into the box
and the box into the grave

eternal darkness is the only escape

Uh..translate?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Those who believe in the Bible see it as true, those who don't believe in the Bible see it as fiction.

The latter no. It's historical and a lot of physical facts are true and written in other parts of history. There are supernatural in paganism and other religious before and mixed in the bible. But the supernatural can't be proven of specific to the bible (and Quran and...) as a whole.

 

[Thief]

Uh..translate?

uh.....contemplate
uh....meditate
uh....think about it