Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis: is it to be taken literally?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 31 of 301 (106613)
05-08-2004 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
05-07-2004 5:21 PM


Hi Brian !
From your post:
"Genesis.......creation myth(s)"
Why is the creation account of Genesis assumed a myth ?
The CLAIM of Genesis is that it is the PROTECTED account of what happened, protected by God as His version of how things were and went. (what validates the claim to be true is another subject)
In this case, as in all cases when God is communicating what He wants known, His subjective views become the objective truth. Therefore if the creation account of Genesis is true, then this would logically explain every other similar account fact or fiction. This also explains why these stories have common denominators and it explains their differences in that the Genesis account is the protected version of facts and the others are unguarded by God as they evolve over time and change.
The existence of similar stories in other civilizations fact or fiction and the threads of common denominators only say one thing : There is a source, a beginning of the central and common facts therein. That source is the account of Genesis from which all the others flow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 05-07-2004 5:21 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brian, posted 05-08-2004 2:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 33 by JonF, posted 05-08-2004 2:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 34 by jar, posted 05-08-2004 5:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 32 of 301 (106614)
05-08-2004 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object
05-08-2004 1:50 PM


Hi WT, good to 'see' you.
Why is the creation account of Genesis assumed a myth ?
It is to do with the format of the narratives. God may indeed have created the universe and everything in it, but the Genesis narratives are not detailed, technical accounts of how He achieved this. Myths are often used to explain events that are beyond human understanding, it doesn’t follow that a myth is a work of fiction. Think of it this way, if God created the universe and everything in it with a single thought then how boring a story would that be, and it really doesn’t give humans an understanding of how beholding we should be to God. On the other hand, if there is a narrative to explain to humans how wonderful God is and it outlines how God went about creating the universe, then that is far more interesting, it gives humans a place in God’s grand scheme.
There are many myths all over the world that explain in human terms things that are beyond our understanding. Myths that explain thunder for example, are myths that attempt to explain a real phenomenon. There is such a thing as thunder, people used to write myths to explain how thunder happens, God created the universe and everything in it and people wrote myths to explain how and why He did this.
Calling the creation narratives ‘myths’ is not the same as saying they are fictional accounts, they have just been written in such a way that humans can draw some understanding from them.
The CLAIM of Genesis is that it is the PROTECTED account of what happened, protected by God as His version of how things were and went.
Is this really a claim that Genesis makes?
In this case, as in all cases when God is communicating what He wants known, His subjective views become the objective truth.
But the ‘truth’ is always objective, whether something is true or not is not affected by what anyone believes.
Therefore if the creation account of Genesis is true, then this would logically explain every other similar account fact or fiction.
The big problem here is that the Genesis creation accounts have no basis in fact at all, there is no ‘theory of creation’ that has any credibility at all. It is a very big ‘if’ you have in there, and everything we know from science, archaeology, and history is against creation.
This also explains why these stories have common denominators and it explains their differences in that the Genesis account is the protected version of facts and the others are unguarded by God as they evolve over time and change.
This is a hugely subjective statement WT, if the Genesis narratives were factual, we would all be following Yahweh, we would all be teaching creation in science classes, and we would all be careful what we are looking at when we make love to our partners because Genesis’ version of genetic modification is pretty frightening.
The existence of similar stories in other civilizations fact or fiction and the threads of common denominators only say one thing : There is a source, a beginning of the central and common facts therein. That source is the account of Genesis from which all the others flow.
But the Genesis myths are not the oldest creation myths we have, the Atrahassis myth is much older, and the Bible has borrowed many elements from Atrahassis.
Anyway, just to let you know that ‘myth’ does not equal ‘fiction’.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-08-2004 1:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-09-2004 8:35 PM Brian has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 33 of 301 (106616)
05-08-2004 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object
05-08-2004 1:50 PM


Why is the creation account of Genesis assumed a myth ?
Because it is one. Are you aware that "myth" does not mean "fairy tale" or "false tale"?
From M-W.com, the primary menaing of "myth" is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". Genesis fits that definition perfectly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-08-2004 1:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 301 (106652)
05-08-2004 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object
05-08-2004 1:50 PM


I don't know that I would call it a Myth
as much as an early theory.
Genesis does the best it can in the language of the day to explain the things that are observed by the people living then. Actually, it is one of the better attempts when compared to some other Creation stories.
And for a long period of time it was useful and a perfectly valid theory. It could be used to explain what was then observed. Any things that didn't quite fit in could be attributed to Giants, Dragons or other basically unexplained creatures and events.
It was only when additional FACTs came to light, ones that could not be explained by the Genesis Theory, that, like the Ptolemaic Theory of the Solar System, it had to be abandoned.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-08-2004 1:50 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 301 (106663)
05-08-2004 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Darwin Storm
05-07-2004 9:20 PM


Buzsaw, as personal belief, there is nothing wrong with your viewpoint. However, isn't it contradictory to use the term day to mean two differnt things in Genesis 1, even though there is no reason to do so other than personal interpretation? It seems to indicate that your viewpoint isn't truly "literal", and that you have no problem at least intreprating some of the of the bible to match other personal viewpoints.
Mike pretty well covered my reasons for my statements. Thanks Mike. It takes me a while to get back to responses as I'm a busy fellow. You see Darwin, all the text uses to describe "days" were evenings and mornings. The earth was, according to Genesis created before the sun and an undetermined number of stars. The Holy Spirit was doing the working according to Genesis one and Psalms 104:30. It is my believe that the all powerful Holy Spirit was the light of it while present working. Nothing was in place to light the earth or to determine the length of the evenings and mornings until sometime in day four when the creation of the sun, moon and "stars" were put in place. Even the plant life preceeded the sun. So how can we say emphatically that the first four days were 24 hour days?
And to say the universe is only 6000 years old is just plain unthinkable. That would have the eternal God, creator of the universe, who claims to be the same yesterday, today and forever out in space all by himself with nothing around him and nothing to do for all eternity preceeding a mere 6000 years ago. I must say, I don't blame the critics for rolling their eyes at that notion.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Darwin Storm, posted 05-07-2004 9:20 PM Darwin Storm has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 6:37 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 37 by sidelined, posted 05-08-2004 6:56 PM Buzsaw has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 301 (106665)
05-08-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
05-08-2004 6:24 PM


I'll go with Buz on this one. It's hard to believe that an ancient people meant 24-hour time periods when they didn't even have clocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 6:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 7:27 PM crashfrog has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 37 of 301 (106670)
05-08-2004 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Buzsaw
05-08-2004 6:24 PM


buzsaw
. So how can we say emphatically that the first four days were 24 hour days?
Gen 1:5 And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:8 And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
The hebrew word for evening is `ereb.The translation is evening,sunset or night.
The hebrew word for morning is boqer. The translation is morning, break of day,of end of night,of coming of daylight,of coming of sunrise,of beginning of day,of bright joy after night of distress morrow, next day, next morning take your pick.
Obviously it is a description of the cycle of night and day which, unless you mean to ignore the evidence of the cycle of day and night we still experience,then it is a 24 hour period no doubt.

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 6:24 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 7:38 PM sidelined has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 301 (106671)
05-08-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
05-08-2004 6:37 PM


I'll go with Buz on this one. It's hard to believe that an ancient people meant 24-hour time periods when they didn't even have clocks.
To clarify my position, I would assume cultures very early had dials for measuring the segments of the days, whether it was in hours, watches or what. The shadow dial is mentioned first in II Kings 20:11 ( the 7th century BC) and some place by the prophet Isaiah. I believe the prophet Daniel was the first to use the term, "hour" in the 5th century. That is not to say hours could not have been in use well before that. When I said 24 hour days began after day four, all I was saying is the length of the day after day four was what we would know as 24 hours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2004 6:37 PM crashfrog has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 301 (106674)
05-08-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by sidelined
05-08-2004 6:56 PM


Obviously it is a description of the cycle of night and day which, unless you mean to ignore the evidence of the cycle of day and night we still experience,then it is a 24 hour period no doubt.
You miss my point, being that the duration an evening and morning day would depend on something other than the sun before it was created. It would depend on how fast the earth revolved or in fact if it revolved at all. The Holy Spirit, if indeed he was the light of it by day would determine how long the days and nights would be and as to how the light was shown upon the earth. He could have lit the whole earth simultaneously for the day and darkened it for the night. The Bible simply does not give the specifics of this information. What it does say is that on day four there was created a natural body to determine the days months seasons and years. This implies that before this they were undetermined, does it not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by sidelined, posted 05-08-2004 6:56 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2004 12:04 AM Buzsaw has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 40 of 301 (106710)
05-09-2004 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
05-08-2004 7:38 PM


buzsaw
You miss my point, being that the duration an evening and morning day would depend on something other than the sun before it was created
Now you are grasping at straws. Here in this post you are now making God as the source of light to save the obvious embarassment of admitting that the ruse you are employing does not work. I mean what the heck does God need to distinguish betwwen evening and morning while in the act of creation.LOL Sorry but this is a prime example of twisting square pegs to fit round holes.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 05-08-2004 11:04 PM

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 05-08-2004 7:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 301 (106718)
05-09-2004 1:03 AM


...
The reason so many of you call Genesis a myth is because of Evolution. Because Evolution says something else and you believe it so Genesis must be false. Gods words in Genesis were written in plain literal language. The days were normal 24hr days. We have a 7 day week because of Gods 7 day creation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2004 1:42 AM almeyda has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 42 of 301 (106722)
05-09-2004 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by almeyda
05-09-2004 1:03 AM


Re: ...
almeyda
The reason so many of you call Genesis a myth is because of Evolution
Where do you get the idea that you could possibly know the reason behind our points of view as regards Genesis? I for one see the fact of evolution in nature and have seen the evidence. It is an error to say that the words of Genesis were Gods since it is obvious that they were written by men.
You can claim that the men were inspired by God but that amounts to no more than opinion. You are allowed your own opinion but not your own facts.Genesis is opinion while evolution is fact.

"We cannot define anything precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, 'You don't know what you are talking about!' The second one says 'What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?', and so on."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 1:03 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 2:57 AM sidelined has replied

almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 301 (106728)
05-09-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by sidelined
05-09-2004 1:42 AM


Re: ...
I get to the idea from the fact that Evolution is what leads many to believe Genesis is wrong. You arent worth debating because you believe Evolution is fact. Which must mean you dont believe the facts are being interpreted but are speaking for themselves. This "I" think is very naive. Yes the Bible was written by man by todays Holy Bible is the same in meaning to the original text

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2004 1:42 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Asgara, posted 05-09-2004 3:02 AM almeyda has replied
 Message 45 by sidelined, posted 05-09-2004 3:48 AM almeyda has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 44 of 301 (106730)
05-09-2004 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by almeyda
05-09-2004 2:57 AM


Re: ...
And you have access to these original texts? I believe many, many people would be very interested in seeing them.
I agree with Sidelined. You have no basis for telling anyone here why they do or don't believe in anything. Personally, evolution had nothing to do with my lack of belief as it had no problem accepting evolution when I did believe. Most of my friends who believe also have no problem in accepting evolution. Your beliefs are a very small minority of Christianity.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 2:57 AM almeyda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 3:54 AM Asgara has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 45 of 301 (106732)
05-09-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by almeyda
05-09-2004 2:57 AM


Re: ...
almeyda
You arent worth debating because you believe Evolution is fact.
It is a fact.Incremental change resulting in new species over time has occured. The theory of evolution is the model we use to describe the way in which the observed physical change in species drove evolution.We have observed it in existing species numerous times.We can infer it from the fossil record and geology.It occurs whenever you use an anti-bacterial solution in your household.It is pervasive in nature and,yes,you are included in its realm.
Which must mean you dont believe the facts are being interpreted but are speaking for themselves
Absolutely spot on! That is the nature of facts,they are what remains regardless of interpretation or opinion.A theory willattempt to interpret facts but is itself capable of change as evidence comes in.
Theories are useful in making predictions about what we can expect to discover in further experiments or evidence and when these predictions bear fruit or evidence attests to the accuracy of assumptions made then we have a greater confidence in our model as a outline of what we observe.
Evolution does not disprove Genesis. It does that on its own when we try to apply what we know about the physical world to the statements contained in the book.It does not match what is observed about the universe. The bible is fascinating in its own right as a myth and in a cultural sense but as a description of the subtle intricacies of the universe it is feeble and empty of nourishment.
This message has been edited by sidelined, 05-09-2004 02:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by almeyda, posted 05-09-2004 2:57 AM almeyda has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024