Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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?
grass monkey
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 301 (107101)
05-10-2004 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Dan Carroll
05-10-2004 11:02 AM


Re: worship a book???
Your obviously a fan of Spawn eh?
If it angers you too much I'll change the avatar or username, but I'll only do this cos your a fan eh, not for any none-fans though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-10-2004 11:02 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dan Carroll, posted 05-10-2004 11:14 AM grass monkey has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 301 (107102)
05-10-2004 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by grass monkey
05-10-2004 11:12 AM


Re: worship a book???
Hey, it's your call, guy. Whatever makes you happy.
But yeah, give it an hour or so, I think it's definitely time to bring back the comics thread. We can carry on there.

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by grass monkey, posted 05-10-2004 11:12 AM grass monkey has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 78 of 301 (107157)
05-10-2004 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Sylas
05-09-2004 9:17 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
Sylas quote: (context of what Genesis is)
______________________________________________________________________
It is a creation myth
______________________________________________________________________
That is your subjective opinion.
Sylas quote:
_____________________________________________________________________
The basic purpose of the first chapter of Genesis is most likely to defend monotheism in the face of surrounding polythesitic cultures.
______________________________________________________________________
This is an ancient belief that defies the text. Genesis DOES NOT initiate monotheism, it DECLARES the one and only true polytheistic Deity - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph.
How so ?
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created...."
Wrong translation !
It should be translated "In the beginning GODS created...."
The original hebrew says "Elohim", that is the plural name of God.
It means what it says, hence, God is letting everyone know that the Godhead as revealed elsewhere in scripture created the heavens and the Earth. Go ahead and check me out in any hebrew commentary on Genesis.
Sylas quote:
______________________________________________________________________
The carefully structured arrangement of events has noticable parallels with other creation accounts of the time
______________________________________________________________________
Yes.
Why ?
Because the Genesis account is the God-protected version of the truth. All the others are unguarded by God. These other accounts evidence a common source (Genesis) and they corroborate that these events did happen. This explains the similarities and common denominators. The claim made for Genesis is that it is God's eternal word, authored by God as a record of the truth.
Any evos reading this ?
Tell me how ToE disproves Genesis without using the filter of your worldview ?
Sylas quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Ancient readers, prior to the rise of science, did tend to take these accounts as "true", but this was basically a consequence of the fact that there were no alternatives,
______________________________________________________________________
In other words Sylas is placing himself on a pedestal, then he looks down on the ancients from his lofty perch erected upon matter-based deity, and subjectively declares that the scientific worldview is the only pathway to determine truth.
Let a theist interpret: Genesis is above your head - your self inflated dismissal indicates the lack of any spiritual sense or understanding. You sound like the religionists that science ridicules for having a closed mind.
Sylas quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Genesis is about. It is expressing theological principles,
______________________________________________________________________
Theology is superior to any other principle because God's subjective views are objective truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Sylas, posted 05-09-2004 9:17 PM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by matt_dabbs, posted 05-11-2004 12:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

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


Message 79 of 301 (107438)
05-11-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
05-09-2004 8:35 PM


Hi WT,
If you want to stipulate that then I cannot prevent it, but everyone knows that when Genesis is equated with the adjective "myth" that the author is saying that they believe the claims of Genesis are NOT TRUE.
I am sorry WT, but everyone who equates Genesis with myth is not saying that they believe that Genesis is untrue, only someone who has no idea what a myth is would say that.
Yes, I completely agree. My point was that God's subjective views are the only subjective views that become objective, automatically, IF HE IS.
Why do they automatically become objective, God doesn’t have a monopoly on truth WT.
But, to go on and redefine myth is essentially a worthless stipulation.
But I haven’t redefined ‘myth’. Maybe I have used a definition that you are unfamiliar with?
Nobody is going to reconfigure their perception of what myth means
People should reconfigure their perceptions of what anything means if they have been mistaken about what that thing is. Anyone who equates ‘myth’ with ’fiction’ doesn’t know what myth means.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-09-2004 8:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

matt_dabbs
Inactive Junior Member


Message 80 of 301 (107464)
05-11-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Cold Foreign Object
05-10-2004 3:29 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created...."
Wrong translation !
It should be translated "In the beginning GODS created...."
The original hebrew says "Elohim", that is the plural name of God.
I don't understand this...are you saying the Bible actually says it was GODS (plural) that created the universe and not God himself? Of course, that would make more sense since God repeatedly says us throughout the creation story:
Gen 1:26a -- Then God said, "Let US make Adam in OUR image, according to OUR likeness;"
etc.

"The religion of the invisible pink unicorn is based both on faith and logic...through faith we know that the unicorn is pink, while logic tells us it is invisible."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-10-2004 3:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by MarkAustin, posted 05-11-2004 3:51 PM matt_dabbs has not replied
 Message 85 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-11-2004 6:20 PM matt_dabbs has not replied

MonkeyBoy
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 301 (107468)
05-11-2004 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jar
05-10-2004 10:10 AM


Off topic for a minute
Jar!
You are the one that said this:
The Map is not the Territory. A Treasure Map is not the Treasure.
I was trying to find that quote; that really opened my eyes, in my search for god. I completely agree, if some or most of the bible is 'discovered' to be errant, that will not affect my faith in the slightest.
Carry on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jar, posted 05-10-2004 10:10 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 2:23 PM MonkeyBoy has replied

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


Message 82 of 301 (107491)
05-11-2004 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by MonkeyBoy
05-11-2004 12:46 PM


Re: Off topic for a minute
I certainly can't take any credit for it, but you may want to read Language in Thought and Action by S.I. Hayakawa.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by MonkeyBoy, posted 05-11-2004 12:46 PM MonkeyBoy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by MonkeyBoy, posted 05-12-2004 9:20 AM jar has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 83 of 301 (107534)
05-11-2004 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by matt_dabbs
05-11-2004 12:41 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
matt_dabbs, "Elohim" is the Hebrew plural for God: thus anywhere in the Bible where that word is used, the correct translation is Gods, although some interpret this as being similar to Kings refering to themselves in the plural.
There is increasing archaeological evidence for a female consort for Yahweh in Palestine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by matt_dabbs, posted 05-11-2004 12:41 PM matt_dabbs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Brian, posted 05-11-2004 4:04 PM MarkAustin has not replied
 Message 143 by ramoss, posted 08-15-2004 10:08 PM MarkAustin has not replied

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


Message 84 of 301 (107538)
05-11-2004 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MarkAustin
05-11-2004 3:51 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
Hi,
There is evidence from Elephantine of 'Yahweh and his Asherah' a female consort, maybe htis is what you are referring to?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MarkAustin, posted 05-11-2004 3:51 PM MarkAustin has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 85 of 301 (107572)
05-11-2004 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by matt_dabbs
05-11-2004 12:41 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
Matt Dabbs excerpt:
______________________________________________________________________
I don't understand this...are you saying the Bible actually says it was GODS (plural) that created the universe and not God himself? Of course, that would make more sense since God repeatedly says us throughout the creation story:
Gen 1:26a -- Then God said, "Let US make Adam in OUR image, according to OUR likeness;"
______________________________________________________________________
I am saying what any O.T. hebrew commentary will tell you, which is that the original hebrew for Gen. 1:1 has "Gods", plural, despite the singular found in most translations.
Yes Matt it would make more sense especially in lieu of "us" elsewhere.
When the scripture says God is one, that is speaking about unity. Clearly the entire record of the 66 books reveals a three Personage Godhead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by matt_dabbs, posted 05-11-2004 12:41 PM matt_dabbs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 6:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 87 by Loudmouth, posted 05-11-2004 7:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

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


Message 86 of 301 (107576)
05-11-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Cold Foreign Object
05-11-2004 6:20 PM


Re: we and us and GODs
Or simply polytheism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-11-2004 6:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-12-2004 7:29 PM jar has replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 301 (107585)
05-11-2004 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Cold Foreign Object
05-11-2004 6:20 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
quote:
I am saying what any O.T. hebrew commentary will tell you, which is that the original hebrew for Gen. 1:1 has "Gods", plural, despite the singular found in most translations.
This is coming from a Discovery Channel program I watched a while ago, so please let me know if anything is incorrect.
There were two names of God given in Genesis 1 and 2, Elohim and Yahweh (or was it Adonai?). The two inter-related but different creation stories in Gen. 1 and 2 seems to support the theory that there were two camps in early Judaism: the polytheist and monotheist camps. The same can be seen in the depiction of the Noachian flood, two different but related tellings of the global flood reflecting two camps within Judaism.
My feeling is that if the Genesis accounts of both creation and the Noachian flood can be told in different ways to reflect different theologies (with Elohim and Yahweh being used separately in each version), then why should either be taken as literal fact. That is, the creation and global flood myth are not being stressed as literal fact, but rather a lens through which we can understand the nature of God(s). My contention is that the myths in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally, but rather figuratively. It is a theological lesson, not a scientific lesson.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-11-2004 6:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by MarkAustin, posted 05-12-2004 6:10 AM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 121 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-14-2004 7:17 PM Loudmouth has not replied

MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3815 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 88 of 301 (107685)
05-12-2004 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Loudmouth
05-11-2004 7:11 PM


Re: Genesis should be treated just like any other theory that no longer serves a purpose
The generally accepted scholarly opinion on Bible (in particular Pentuach (sp?) authrship is that Genisis and some other books are a combination of two authors: E who refers to God as Elohim, and J, who refers to him as Yahweh (it's J rather than Y because the original scholars were German, who tend to use a J for the English Y sound), and that these two different traditions were responsible for the duplicated stories.
Later textual analysis identified P, for Priest, responsible for Leviticus, the laws and the geneologies, and D, author of Deiteronomy, which is considered stylisticly distinct.
These distinct books were threaded together by R, for Redactor, who put the various stories together, and also added linking passages such as "Now it came to pass, after these things . . ."
There's a good summary here on Straight Dope. though I stress I'm not a Bible scholar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Loudmouth, posted 05-11-2004 7:11 PM Loudmouth has not replied

MonkeyBoy
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 301 (107695)
05-12-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
05-11-2004 2:23 PM


Off topic for a minute
Thanks for the title, I will read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 2:23 PM jar has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 90 of 301 (107778)
05-12-2004 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
05-11-2004 6:42 PM


Re: we and us and GODs
Jar quote:
______________________________________________________________________
Or simply polytheism.
______________________________________________________________________
Agreed.
BUT, polytheism already being strictly defined to the Gods of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 05-11-2004 6:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 05-12-2004 7:35 PM Cold Foreign Object 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