Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

[Subduction Zone]

I guess you don't know what "omnipotent" means. If god was omnipotent and wanted to change history, it would have been changed in a way we could never detect.

If he wanted to. But once again, he would still be a liar if the evidence of the Earth's past the he planted was different from what is in the Bible.

This should not be that hard to understand. In fact my example is the same as what you stated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It means All-Powerful.

Then your answer should have been yes. A no answer tells us that he would not have that power.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you know, of course, that the ideas and statements in Genesis did not come from God, is that right?

Yes, I do know that. Do you know that?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I am listening but I am confused.
Some Christians interpret Genesis literally. Those people believe that Genesis came from God.
They are not calling God a liar because they believe Genesis happened as written in the Bible.

This is correct in the sense that they (the believers) are not accusing God of lying…..
They have accepted the lie.

Yes they are. Do you understand that all of the evidence tells us that the various stories of Genesis never happened?

This is correct in the sense that the objective evidence indicates that the stories of Genesis are falsehoods.
If Genesis was “inspired” or by any other mean “the word of God” as claimed by the believers…
Then that would indict God as having lied to them, and thus make him (God) the lier.

This of course assumes that God intended to deceive in order to classify it as a lie.
It can get tricky, because according to prevailing definitions, a lie requires the intent to deceive.
The easiest defense of which is that the message was “misperceived”, relieving (minus the obvious legalese wrangling) the culpability of the accused.

 

[gnostic]

Did you know that all post-Adam biblical stories are well placed in time following a natural chronology that can be reconstructed from the information contained in the books of the Bible and most of them (if not each one and all) contains elements that can be verified somehow by secular knowledge obtained by totally different means?

No, what you say are true.

The chapter about the post-Flood Table of Nations - or in Genesis 10, are false, especially in regards to Egypt, and to the Mesopotamian Sumer/Babylonia and Assyria.

Take for instance the cities of Mesopotamia.

Genesis say that Nimrod was founder of number of cities in Babylonia (Shinar) & Assyria.

The problems here, are that none of the cities listed in Genesis 10:10-12, were built in one time.

For instance, archaeologically, the oldest settlement of Nineveh, have been dated to the Late Neolithic period, about 6000 BCE. More importantly we know another Assyrian city called Kalhu, Calah in Genesis 10, was constructed during the reign of Shalmaneser I (1273 - 1244 BCE).

Not only Nineveh would predate Adam’s creation, there is gap between the foundation of Nineveh and foundation of Kalhu/Calah, of 4700 years.

So unless Nimrod, have lived for 4700 years, he couldn’t have found both Nineveh and Calah (Kalhu).

Not only Nineveh would predate Adam’s creation, so does Eridu (Genesis 10:10), called Uruk in Sumerian. The oldest settlement of Uruk, is about 5000 BCE. From 4000 to 2400 BCE, Uruk was the largest city in the world, and was the most wealthy city in the Near East, between 3500 and 2900 BCE, due to its extensive building programme (which included the completion of Uruk’s ziggurat), during the 34th & 33rd centuries BCE.

The Genesis timeline definitely don’t match the archaeological timeline of cities of Sumer/Babylonia and of Assyria.

Likewise, Egyptian culture actually predated the unification of Two Egypt, predating the dynastic age - the 4th millennium BCE was known as the Predynastic Period or the Proto-dynastic period. The Predynastic Egypt was divided into separate kingdoms: Upper Egypt & Lower Egypt, and it was before they started building the pyramids in the old Kingdom period. The 1st pyramid was built, by the 1st king Djoser (1st half of the 27th century BCE).

If the Flood had occurred during the late 3rd millennium BCE, eg between 2500 BCE and 2200 BCE, then Egypt should have had different culture prior to the nonexistent Flood.

If a global flood had occurred with only 8 survivors, then there would have been break in culture and break in civilisation. But there are no such flood, as the Early Bronze Age (c 3100 to c 2000 BCE) cultures were the same in Egyptian cultures and the same Sumerian culture, their respective arts and their writing systems (cuneiform for Sumerians, and hieroglyphs & hieratic for Egyptians) were unchanged in the 3rd millennium BCE.

but according to Genesis 10, Egypt didn’t exist prior to the Flood, Egypt or Mizraim was a son of Ham (Genesis 10:6).

Genesis 10 is as much a myth, as that of the Creation, the Flood & the Tower of Babel episodes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is correct in the sense that they (the believers) are not accusing God of lying…..
They have accepted the lie.

This is correct in the sense that the objective evidence indicates that the stories of Genesis are falsehoods.
If Genesis was “inspired” or by any other mean “the word of God” as claimed by the believers…
Then that would indict God as having lied to them, and thus make him (God) the lier.

This of course assumes that God intended to deceive in order to classify it as a lie.
It can get tricky, because according to prevailing definitions, a lie requires the intent to deceive.
The easiest defense of which is that the message was “misperceived”, relieving (minus the obvious legalese wrangling) the culpability of the accused.

The problem for these people is that they do claim they believe that the Bible is God's inspired work. That means that those conditions apply. We have to go by their beliefs as to what their version of God is. That means that even if by some miracle that he did flood the Earth and covered up his evil deeds that he was a liar. I do not believe in the flood so even if I believed in God I would not be calling him a liar. I would only be saying that those that interpret Genesis literally were in error. But I would probably still point out that they are calling God a liar.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then your answer should have been yes. A no answer tells us that he would not have that power.

Could an all powerful God do what it says in Genesis and then have used his omnipotence to hide that fact? Could he have made it look as if the Earth never had a worldwide flood if that happened. Could he keep doing God magic restoring diversity to the genome of almost all species (not cheetahs for example) to cover up that he killed almost everything of. Though that would take quite a few generations of God magic?
It is all just one yes or no answer.

Yes, but what is your point?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is correct in the sense that they (the believers) are not accusing God of lying…..
They have accepted the lie.

Yes, that is exactly what I have been trying to say.

This is correct in the sense that the objective evidence indicates that the stories of Genesis are falsehoods.
If Genesis was “inspired” or by any other mean “the word of God” as claimed by the believers…
Then that would indict God as having lied to them, and thus make him (God) the lier.

This of course assumes that God intended to deceive in order to classify it as a lie.

That is correct. To lie is to intend to deceive. We cannot say that God lied unless we know that God intended to deceive people.

It can get tricky, because according to prevailing definitions, a lie requires the intent to deceive.
The easiest defense of which is that the message was “misperceived”, relieving (minus the obvious legalese wrangling) the culpability of the accused.

As I see it several possibilities exist:

1. Genesis was written by men who believed what they wrote was literally true, but it did not come from God.
2. Genesis was written by men who believed what they wrote was literally true. It came from God and God intended for it to be interpreted literally because that was all men could understand back in those days, before the scientific age. God knew that there would be an update in the future when God sent another Messenger, an update that clarified that the meaning of Genesis was allegorical.
3. Genesis was written by men who believed what they wrote was literally true. It came from God but God intended it to be interpreted allegorically at the time it was written up to the present time, and in the future.

 

[Trailblazer]

If he wanted to. But once again, he would still be a liar if the evidence of the Earth's past the he planted was different from what is in the Bible.

No, God would not be a liar unless He deliberately intended to deceive people.

What is being called a liar?

a person who deliberately gives false testimony. fabricator, fibber, storyteller. someone who tells lies. type of: beguiler, cheat, cheater, deceiver, slicker, trickster. someone who leads you to believe something that is not true.

Liar - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com​

There are several possibilities as to why Genesis says what it says:

Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

I guess you don't know what "omnipotent" means. If god was omnipotent and wanted to change history, it would have been changed in a way we could never detect. If he wanted to. But once again, he would still be a liar if the evidence of the Earth's past the he planted was different from what...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[PureX]

I'm going to go to the "horse's mouth" for this, so to speak ...

Joseph Campbell’s Four Basic Functions of Mythology​

The Mystical Function - This function is about experiencing the awe of the universe. It’s telling stories that touch the cornerstone of what it means to be a human being engaged with the unexplainable.​

The Cosmological Function - This function is about formulating and rendering an image of the universe. Before science, before religion, we create stories through art, spoken word, and the mighty pen. Using our imaginations, we mythologically lash out. Our five senses explode into the creation myth.​

The Sociological Function - This function is about supporting and validating a certain social order. These stories help to bind people to a certain tribe or social group. Sociological myths are the essential building blocks behind all codes of moral conduct.​

The Pedagogical Function - According to Joseph Campbell, this is the most important of the four functions. This is the psychological function of myth, which lies at the heart of the other three functions. It’s about how to live a human lifetime under any circumstances. Pedagogical myths help to shape individuals to the aims and ideals of a particular social group or tribe, guiding them from birth to death through the course of a human life. These are myths that show by good and/or bad example how to live a human life.​

Myth is not about actual history and is not defined by it's relation to actual history. Myth is designed to fulfill a cultural/social purpose, and that purpose is what defines it as myth. A given myth may or may not use actual facts from history to convey it's message, but it's the message that defines it, not the presence or absence of any amount of historical fact.

I also found this:

A legend is presumed to have some basis in historical fact and tends to mention real people or events. Historical fact morphs into a legend when the truth has been exaggerated to the point that real people or events have taken on a romanticized, "larger than life" quality. In contrast, a myth is a type of symbolic storytelling that was never based on fact. Throughout time, myths have sought to explain difficult concepts (e.g., the origin of the universe) with the help of common story devices, such as personification and allegories.

These words are commonly used interchangeably to refer to the fictitious nature of something. Historically and academically, however, there is a difference.

Note that the myth is NOT BASED ON historical fact. That does not mean that historical facts cannot be included, and used to better convey the ideal message. It simply means that the purpose of the myth is not dependent upon historical factuality. While legends, on the other hand, are presented as and presumed to be historical fact even when they have been greatly exaggerated.

Biblical myths are myths, not legends. They are intended to convey information not reliant upon historical fact. And they are not reliant on historicity for the validity of their message.

 

[gnostic]

As I see it several possibilities exist:

1. Genesis was written by men who believed what they wrote was literally true, but it did not come from God.
2. Genesis was written by men who believed what they wrote was literally true. It came from God and God intended for it to be interpreted literally because that was all men could understand back in those days, before the scientific age. God knew that there would be an update in the future when God sent another Messenger, an update that clarified that the meaning of Genesis was allegorical.
3. Genesis was written by men who believed what they wrote was literally true. It came from God but God intended it to be interpreted allegorically at the time it was written up to the present time, and in the future.

interesting points…

…but there are few facts that you and others.

According to Jewish tradition and Christian tradition, Genesis and Exodus and other books were attributed to Moses, as if he was the original author. But traditions are not history.

If Moses did exist, then he would have lived in some times during the Late Bronze Age, which started around 1590 BCE, and ended around 1050 BCE, where Iron Age started. If we are to believe that Solomon existed, reigning around 970 BCE, then the Israelites would have left Egypt (see Exodus 12:37) about 1447 BCE, because what it say 1 Kings 6:1, that the “exodus” began “480 years” before Solomon’s temple foundation.

These dates I provided above, are only estimates if Moses and Solmoon were real living, historical figures. But they are not. If Moses did write Genesi, Exodus, Numbers & Leviticus, then why are there no original books exist in the 15th century BCE?

These books don’t exist until Jews from kingdom of Judah were living in exile as hostages, at Babylon, during the 6th century BCE.

There are not single whole or fragmented texts of Genesis or Exodus from the 15th century BCE to the 7th century BCE.

That’s the fact, no one by the name of Moses, wrote Genesis or Exodus, as both books didn’t exist in the 15th century BCE.

Another fact, if 1447 BCE, was indeed where Israelites left Rameses (Exodus 12:37), then that would put this event in the reign of Thutmose III (1479 to 1425 BCE; Thutmose was the 6th pharaoh of the 18th dynasty). Contemporary written accounts about Thutmose’s life was one of the most important king during the 15th century BCE, and there are no mentions of Moses, Israelites, Hebrews, etc, living in Egypt. No Egyptian texts can verify that Exodus ever happened.

Another fact, is that Rameses or the actual name of city, Pi-Ramesses in Egyptian, never existed until the reigns of Seti I and Ramesses II, both living in the 13th century BCE, belonging to the 19th dynasty. Pi-Ramesses wasn’t completed until Ramesses’ reign, but this new city was name after Ramesses I, Seti’s father.

And if 1447 BCE was date of them leaving Egypt, then Moses would have been born in 1527 BCE, during the reign of Ahmose I (c 1550 - 1525 BCE), founder of the 18th dynasty. We know exactly about Ahmose‘s family, as his life was recorded during his lifetime, which included whom he married, which was his sister, and that he had two daughters, Meritamun and Sitamun, and neither of them had adopted Israelite baby. More facts.

so there are really no facts to support that Moses existed during the early half of the 18th dynasty.

And I find it odd, that if Moses was adopted in the royal family, by the Egyptian princess, then why cannot Exodus name this princess, or name her father. My guess would be that Exodus was written in the 6th century BCE, and not in the 16th and 15th centuries BCE: the author(s) of Exodus, have no real history of Egypt during those centuries.

of course, Genesis (and the Exodus) was written by men, and it was written a lot later than what churches teach, and what Christians believed.

 

[Trailblazer]

of course, Genesis (and the Exodus) was written by men, and it was written a lot later than what churches teach, and what Christians believed.

I agree, so what do you think the implications are to Christian belief? Why do you think it was written as it was?

 

[gnostic]

I agree, so what do you think the implications are to Christian belief? Why do you think it was written as it was?

A large parts of the Bible is all about teaching the moral messages.

Genesis creation of Adam and eve, isn't about history or science ; the teaching and message is that people should obey God...and it is the same messages throughout Genesis.

Start thinking it teaching methods through stories, like myths, allegories, fables and parables.

Most Jews and Christians understand the uses of symbolic narratives.

The mistakes that other Christians have, especially creationists are treating the Bible as history book or with regards to Genesis creation story as book of science. That exposed the Bible to scrutiny that revealed its serious flaws as science or as history.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

MYTH and LEGEND are not the same.

Atheists use the word "myth" to insult religious beliefs. Most of the time they don't use properly that term because they are ignorant of what a myth is.

The main differences between myth and legend are determined by the inclusion of a specific timeframe and verifiable historical information within the story. Legends can be verified as true stories to the extent that knowledge of the historical facts increases over time. For example, some biblical characters and events were considered legends until archaeological documents were discovered that confirmed them as historical.

Before calling "myth" any Biblical story, learn the truth about the information it includes; do not "speak from the liver" (only driven by animal emotions).

Ok I will use legend then. But that does not matter because there is not good evidence to support the claim that Jesus was god in my opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Could an all powerful God do what it says in Genesis and then have used his omnipotence to hide that fact? Could he have made it look as if the Earth never had a worldwide flood if that happened. Could he keep doing God magic restoring diversity to the genome of almost all species (not cheetahs for example) to cover up that he killed almost everything of. Though that would take quite a few generations of God magic?
It is all just one yes or no answer.

Yes, but what is your point?

The point is he could have done that. That appears to be the only way that there could have been a flood. That would also make God a liar. He would have had to have known that it would mislead people in the future. A couple of points. If God cannot lie there was no flood. If God can lie then why trust his promises?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, God would not be a liar unless He deliberately intended to deceive people.

What is being called a liar?

a person who deliberately gives false testimony. fabricator, fibber, storyteller. someone who tells lies. type of: beguiler, cheat, cheater, deceiver, slicker, trickster. someone who leads you to believe something that is not true.

Liar - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com​

There are several possibilities as to why Genesis says what it says:

Learn how to diferenciate between MYTH and LEGEND

I guess you don't know what "omnipotent" means. If god was omnipotent and wanted to change history, it would have been changed in a way we could never detect. If he wanted to. But once again, he would still be a liar if the evidence of the Earth's past the he planted was different from what...

www.religiousforums.com

Now you are forgetting his omniscience. Nothing is accidental for God.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point is he could have done that. That appears to be the only way that there could have been a flood. That would also make God a liar. He would have had to have known that it would mislead people in the future. A couple of points. If God cannot lie there was no flood. If God can lie then why trust his promises?

God could only be a liar if God wrote Genesis. Anyone who has researched the Bible knows that God did not write Genesis.
Why do you believe that God wrote Genesis?

 

[Trailblazer]

Now you are forgetting his omniscience. Nothing is accidental for God.

I am not forgetting it but that is a moot point for this discussion since God did not write Genesis.

 

[McBell]

God could only be a liar if God wrote Genesis. Anyone who has researched the Bible knows that God did not write Genesis.
Why do you believe that God wrote Genesis?

there are some on this very forum who claim God wrote not only Genesis, but the whole rest of the Bible as well.
Some even take it so far as to say that the King James version is the only current God written version of the Bible.
It is those persons that are being pointed out as calling God a liar.

 

[Trailblazer]

there are some on this very forum who claim God wrote not only Genesis, but the whole rest of the Bible as well.
Some even take it so far as to say that the King James version is the only current God written version of the Bible.
It is those persons that are being pointed out as calling God a liar.

I know that some people believe that God wrote the Bible, but they are not calling God a liar since they believe that everything in the Bible is true.