Origin of Gods word

genesis does not bear the same style of writing seen in books that had to have been written during babylonian captivity, like kings.if i had to place money on it, i'd say portions (though not all) of genesis is much older, though it may have only existed as oral tradition. some of genesis does appear to have been written during captivity. genesis is NOT science. genesis was NEVER science. it does not give us an analytical way of viewing the world, or divulge any methodology or logic to creation. if you have to pick a sacred hebrew text to be called science, try the qabala's take on creation. it at least tells us how exactly god created man.instead of tell us how things happen, genesis tells us why things are the way they are. stories in the book often end in "and that is why... " etc. it also seeks to provide a moral framework, based in a traditional mythical history.

the argument is not accuracy. we know that neither is accurate. i'm not arguing that; this is not the place for it.the argument is the story is borrowed from another culture, with a decidedly hebrew spin. the authors did this a lot. they'd re-write their neighbors' traditions to reflect their own views, often to make fun of them. they often even took the foreign names, and transliterated them into ancient hebrew and then made a pun about them. like the tower of balal. in babylonian, it's name meant
"gateway of the god," but it sounds like the "confused." the humor of these things have obviously been lost, but they're good a show that they borrow and re-write legends.the story is liek this with noah, and like this genesis one. only the babylonian myth involved seven gods, not seven days. big difference, wouldn't you say? probably not, but i'll look. most of the stuff i see is from individuals with a need to validate their faith. personally, i think it'd be really cool to find evidence of the exodus, but it's not seeming very likely from what i've seen.

i don't agree. you go on to say that no natural cycle is seven days, and aknowledge that the seven-day week probably comes from the bible.i don't see how that's science. the periods of 7's don't line up right with anything except the lunar month, and the average female menstrual cycle, which both happen to be divisible by seven at 28 days.genesis is simply not a science textbook. it tells us there were plants before the sun. now, it maybe be arguable that mythology, as an attempt to explain the natural world, was the first step toward science. you're putting the emphasis on the wrong part of the verse. the other half, about keeping the sabbath, is the point of the verse. not creation bit. if i wanna read about creation, i have two different accounts in genesis, neither or which say anything about evolution. (although the first hints at it)

the chinese creation myth is similar only in the respect that they have one.it does share a few generalities with the hebrew/babylonian myth (earth seperate from heavens, a pre-existince mass, etc) but no specifics.what i'm saying is that the hebrew (gen 1) and babylonian traditions share specifics: divisions of seven, and all lining up in the same order, and the seventh being rather uneventful.and it's not because it really happened that way. yet the hebrew and babylonian mythos don't compare to say, norse, or native american mythos. why is that? is everyone else just wrong?and lets examine this myth more closely. it should tell us things we can look for, if we read it literally.the first day describes that everything is water, formless, void, and chaotic. god hovers over this water, and creates light. is the entire universe water?the second day describes god seperating the waters with an exanse called the sky. that means that there is water below our feet, and above our heads. outside our atmosphere should be water. does nasa report anything like this?on day three, land and plants are created. yet there is no sun. and this clearly contradicts genesis 2:5 which tells us that man was made before plants.on day four, god creates the sun and moon to "separate night from day" yet we've been counting by nights and days all along. how is that?on day five, god creates fish and birds -- and sea serpents, don't forget those. later, on day six, before man, god creates all the animals, which again contradicts genesis 2.so tell me, how literally do you believe this story? do you believe this one, or the other one, gen 2? if it's such common knowledge, why are there two completely separate creation stories in the bible?This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 10-03-2004 03:56 AM

i don't despise it. i actually quite enjoy it. like you said, it's a good window on the past.but i wouldn't really call it evolutionary in anyway. it's remained more or less unchanged for at least a thousand years, probably more.but it was an attempt to explain the natural world, so yes i suppose we could call it the roots of science in some regard. you make good points.

hi, read with me.

quote:

---

When God began to create heaven and earth -- the earth being unformed and void

---

simplicity, do you agree? god then goes on to create things, and the earth becomes complex. that's what the bible says. and i bet you find the same in ANY creation myth, because they all start from basically NOTHING.

quote:

---

Exd 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exd 20:10 But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates:
Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

---

maybe if the weekend was only one day.

of course they do.there's good evidence that one may have been a spin-off of the other, or at the very least that they grew up in close contact. i'm entirely sure which is more likely to be right, as i'm not really up on my knowledge of the city of ugarit. this may just be a coincidence of language, actually. although i'm not personally convinced of that.

yes, why i included "basically" in front of "nothing"a few start with other rather simplistic things. the chinese starts with an egg. some don't start at all, like the hindu myths. some start from previous existance, like the norse myths. but ALOT start from water, next to nothing.these, not coincidentally, tend to be desert cultures.

yes, nothing but water. is this more or less complex than the current situation?

again, good points.what i was trying to say is that water bears an integral part in creation myths in deserts. but your analysis is much better.

first of all, never, EVER trust answersingenesis. the are a bad source.second, i think you missed the point. it was a rhetorical questions designed to illuminate the absurdity of the statment.