Genesis 2

[Thief]

The word Myth is not "my" word

It is what is applied to Genesis due to its content.

Your application...your bias.

 

[outhouse]

Are you following a literal interpretation of Genesis, or just cherry picking it?

 

[Thief]

Are you following a literal interpretation of Genesis, or just cherry picking it?

I like cherries.
I like Genesis.
I like God.

 

[outhouse]

I like cherries.
I like Genesis.
I like God.

That's great!

But it does not change what Genesis is or is not.

And from your post in the science section you basically admit to cherry picking and a literal interpretation.

 

[Thief]

That's great!

But it does not change what Genesis is or is not.

And from your post in the science section you basically admit to cherry picking and a literal interpretation.

I do both...thank you for affirming it.

 

[Pegg]

That's great!

But it does not change what Genesis is or is not.

And from your post in the science section you basically admit to cherry picking and a literal interpretation.

what exactly is it which makes Genesis a myth?

all of it, or just parts of it?

 

[outhouse]

what exactly is it which makes Genesis a myth?

all of it, or just parts of it?

THIS IS ALL JUST OPINION

So far scientifically, there is nothing that one can attribute to any deity in nature.

No evidence what so ever of a deity doing anything at all.

So if you ask me creation is a 100% myth because nature does not reflect what is written.

All of Genesis is not myth however. Much is in my opinion.


Exodus, so far Israelites factually did not come from Egypt. [Israel Finklestein] I think there is a historical core that at some point a small band my have joined the displaced Canaanites that made up the Israelite culture, but even that is unknown. As written, the Exodus did not take place.

Abraham is said to be a literary creation. So I attribute this as 100% myth

Walls of Jericho, myth. The city had been abandoned for centuries before and after for hundreds of years when the biblical account is said to have taken place. That and we know there was no conquest but rather a peaceful migration to the highlands from 1200 to 1000 BC this is factual and not up for debate at all.

Adam and Eve, myth. It is a impossibility, and the flaws in the mythology are obvious.

Noah and his flood. Mythical. Obviously. It has Sumerian roots that evolved in Mesopotamia.

Cain and Able, myth.

Much of these writings were collected for hundreds of years and redacted and compiled and redacted again as the culture changed, and changed its theology. Much of what we see is heavily influenced by king Josiahs reforms to monotheism after 622 BC, but more importantly to the people who returned after the Babylonian exile bringing with them quite a bit of Mesopotamian mythology including the parts of the creation account.


We are talking about multi cultural people who were literally forced to rebuild themselves so many times, that major changes within the people their culture and religion had done nothing but evolve heavily for 800 years before Genesis was EVEN FINISHED. The people that finished Genesis had no idea of their peoples past and they only had collections of mythology past and present to form around their newly found monotheism to Yahweh.

Looking at Israelites REAL history is nothing less then tragedy, and then beauty of a stubborn and resilient people who did not give up, no matter how many times they were rolled over by aggressive stronger cultures surrounding them.

Theology through scripture doesn't teach history.

Only through archeology and science can one find history in these ancient documents.

Don't ruin the beauty of such epic work that has been around for thousands of years, that took a thousand years to evolve in its creation. :yes:

 

[Thief]

THIS IS ALL JUST OPINION

So far scientifically, there is nothing that one can attribute to any deity in nature.

No evidence what so ever of a deity doing anything at all.

So if you ask me creation is a 100% myth because nature does not reflect what is written.

All of Genesis is not myth however. Much is in my opinion.


Exodus, so far Israelites factually did not come from Egypt. [Israel Finklestein] I think there is a historical core that at some point a small band my have joined the displaced Canaanites that made up the Israelite culture, but even that is unknown. As written, the Exodus did not take place.

Abraham is said to be a literary creation. So I attribute this as 100% myth

Walls of Jericho, myth. The city had been abandoned for centuries before and after for hundreds of years when the biblical account is said to have taken place. That and we know there was no conquest but rather a peaceful migration to the highlands from 1200 to 1000 BC this is factual and not up for debate at all.

Adam and Eve, myth. It is a impossibility, and the flaws in the mythology are obvious.

Noah and his flood. Mythical. Obviously. It has Sumerian roots that evolved in Mesopotamia.

Cain and Able, myth.

Much of these writings were collected for hundreds of years and redacted and compiled and redacted again as the culture changed, and changed its theology. Much of what we see is heavily influenced by king Josiahs reforms to monotheism after 622 BC, but more importantly to the people who returned after the Babylonian exile bringing with them quite a bit of Mesopotamian mythology including the parts of the creation account.


We are talking about multi cultural people who were literally forced to rebuild themselves so many times, that major changes within the people their culture and religion had done nothing but evolve heavily for 800 years before Genesis was EVEN FINISHED. The people that finished Genesis had no idea of their peoples past and they only had collections of mythology past and present to form around their newly found monotheism to Yahweh.

Looking at Israelites REAL history is nothing less then tragedy, and then beauty of a stubborn and resilient people who did not give up, no matter how many times they were rolled over by aggressive stronger cultures surrounding them.

Theology through scripture doesn't teach history.

Only through archeology and science can one find history in these ancient documents.

Don't ruin the beauty of such epic work that has been around for thousands of years, that took a thousand years to evolve in its creation. :yes:

So...you confess to cherry picking?

 

[outhouse]

So...you confess to cherry picking?

Your being ludicrous :areyoucra


Im talking about real history. Not theology and mythology.

 

[sincerly]

THIS IS ALL JUST OPINION

Hi outhouse, Agreed! What you presented following that statement is just your "opinion".

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

So far scientifically, there is nothing that one can attribute to any deity in nature.

No evidence what so ever of a deity doing anything at all.

So if you ask me creation is a 100% myth because nature does not reflect what is written.

All of Genesis is not myth however. Much is in my opinion.

"So far scientifically", "All of Genesis is not myth" betrays much of your opinion. It is based upon the "opinions" of others---as if you are not capable of looking at what is in existance and coming to a right conclusion.
Which reverts to the fundamental principle in Gen.2. Eve had been told and recited the "off-limits" requirement, but listened to the contrary "opinion" of another created being.

"Scientifically", mankind has progressed greatly---in the last 200 years. But, that was prophesied by Daniel(12:4) some 2500+ years ago. "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. "
And I can vouch for that "increase" being in my 84 years.
However, all that is seen -even in scraps of "writings"--verify that GOD and HIS People were there.

Exodus, so far Israelites factually did not come from Egypt. [Israel Finklestein] I think there is a historical core that at some point a small band my have joined the displaced Canaanites that made up the Israelite culture, but even that is unknown. As written, the Exodus did not take place.

According to another man's "opinion".

However, Scripturally, Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees(some 1900+ years B.C.) and they were worshiping false gods.
In 2200+B.C. all the peoples of the world had traveled to Shinar after the flood. The tower of Babel was built there---and from there they migrated elsewhere. At this time no written communication existed.
Abraham and his decendants didn't start writing until Moses came and led the Israelites from Egypt back to the "promised land" about 1490 B.C.

Abraham is said to be a literary creation. So I attribute this as 100% myth

The "is said" is what is false---another "opinion". In those other "writings" the Israelites are identified and they acknowledge "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" as their "fore-fathers".

Walls of Jericho, myth. The city had been abandoned for centuries before and after for hundreds of years when the biblical account is said to have taken place. That and we know there was no conquest but rather a peaceful migration to the highlands from 1200 to 1000 BC this is factual and not up for debate at all.

Scripturally, that event happened about 1450 B.C. and only Rahab and her family walked away peacefully with the Israelites.

Adam and Eve, myth. It is a impossibility, and the flaws in the mythology are obvious.

Nothing is impossible with the Creator GOD of all one sees. and the supposed "flaws" are again, "opinions" of men.

Noah and his flood. Mythical. Obviously. It has Sumerian roots that evolved in Mesopotamia.

Of course, it has "Sumerian roots". Their Ancestors came from those eight persons who were on that Ark. See above.

Cain and Able, myth.

Believe whatever you choose---That same action is still prevalent.

Much of these writings were collected for hundreds of years and redacted and compiled and redacted again as the culture changed, and changed its theology. Much of what we see is heavily influenced by king Josiahs reforms to monotheism after 622 BC, but more importantly to the people who returned after the Babylonian exile bringing with them quite a bit of Mesopotamian mythology including the parts of the creation account.

As has been shown, Abraham was called away from the worshiping of man made gods long before Josiah was born. The called out people of GOD were admonished to worship the Creator GOD only from GOD at Sinai.
Those "Exiles" were told to return to the correct worship of GOD.

We are talking about multi cultural people who were literally forced to rebuild themselves so many times, that major changes within the people their culture and religion had done nothing but evolve heavily for 800 years before Genesis was EVEN FINISHED. The people that finished Genesis had no idea of their peoples past and they only had collections of mythology past and present to form around their newly found monotheism to Yahweh.

This above is the myth. The inspired writings were not "evolved" because GOD had said----do not "Add to nor diminish from" HIS messages.
Genesis was Finished(and the other four books) before Moses's death. Yes, the report of his death was by someone else.

Looking at Israelites REAL history is nothing less then tragedy, and then beauty of a stubborn and resilient people who did not give up, no matter how many times they were rolled over by aggressive stronger cultures surrounding them.

Theology through scripture doesn't teach history.

Only through archeology and science can one find history in these ancient documents.

Don't ruin the beauty of such epic work that has been around for thousands of years, that took a thousand years to evolve in its creation. :yes:

Yes, The Scriptures gave a true picture of that tragedy. Had they been presistently Obedient, those other nations would not have been sent by GOD to urge them back into repentance and submission to their Creator GOD.
Scripture does give actual history and teach theology to those who choose to be compliant to GOD'S WILL.

Archeology is buried and Science is still searching for the History that is presented in the pages of the Scriptures. There is no beauty in pretending/theories. Those like you said initially, are just "OPINIONS".

 

[outhouse]

So far you were all talk and no substance Sincerly.

Apologetics have never wrote history, its a belief system that requires faith, not facts or evidence.

You are a perfect example of this as you have thrown away knowledge reason and education, in favor of what most call mythology.

The days of a literal interpretation, have long been over.

 

[sincerly]

So far you were all talk and no substance Sincerly.

Apologetics have never wrote history, its a belief system that requires faith, not facts or evidence.

You are a perfect example of this as you have thrown away knowledge reason and education, in favor of what most call mythology.

The days of a literal interpretation, have long been over.

Hi outhouse, The days of "false teachers" will have no end as long as time lasts.
It was inspired prophets who wrote the Scriptures seen in the Bible---and they included history as needed to inform the people(BELIEVERS) of their messages. Those Scriptures were "facts or evidence".

It seems that you prefer the myths provided by the nay-sayers.

Yes, you may be correct, the Scriptures do prophesy, 2Tim.4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables".

 

[outhouse]

. Those Scriptures were "facts or evidence".

They factually are not all facts, and as evidence, they are questioned.

I think your issue is your literal interpretation. You really should not debate, because no amount of credible evidence will change how you personally interpret these ancient books you know almost nothing about.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly
. Those Scriptures were "facts or evidence".

They factually are not all facts, and as evidence, they are questioned.

I think your issue is your literal interpretation. You really should not debate, because no amount of credible evidence will change how you personally interpret these ancient books you know almost nothing about.

Hi Outhouse, That is your "Opinion" as you stated previously, and just said "I think".
I am well aware of the metaphorical/synbolic/parable nature of some things in the Scriptures.
What you are referring to as credible evidence is the "theories/opinions" of men.
I consider the recordings by the People who wrote concerning their good and evil activities of greater value than those who only recorded the supposedly good events.

I accept the Creator GOD as the "beginning source" of al things---rather than the theories of man who wasn't there and refuses to accept the evidence of those who were and recorded the happenings.

Who shouldn't debate??? If you do not want to---that's your decision, but the evidence I see out my window---I'll continue to do so---thank you!

 

[captainbryce]

You making baseless assumption as to what type of DAY is being used in those verses. To make it mean AGE or ERA or EPOCH is something else, in which you can't prove, except taking the verse out of context.

How do you qualify these statements? You say my interpretation is "baseless", yet there are many reasons from which I have drawn my conclusion.

1) The fact that "day" doesn't mean 24 hours in this case is backed up by the fact that Adam did NOT die within 24 hours. In order for day to mean 24 hours in this case, then God is a liar.

2) The fact that the creation days MUST be longer than 24 hours each backs up my interpretation. The events that occur on day 6 prove that the creation days were not 24 hours.

3) The fact that we know the word yom is used in instances that do NOT refer to 24 hour periods, but long ages ("In the day that God created the Earth and the heavens", "The day of the Lord", etc).

So the question now becomes, on what basis can you draw the conclusion that "day" in Genesis 2:17 must refer to 24 hours (or equivalent)? You say that I'm "taking it out of context". But my interpretation is the only one that is consistent with the entire biblical text. But since you believe it is taken out of context, you now have the responsibility of putting the verse in context for the rest of us. If you can make a 24 hour interpretation consistent with the other biblical texts then you will have made your point. If you cannot do this, then either your interpretation is faulty in some way, or the text is!

You're taking the verse completely out-of-context. Nothing indicate God creating the heavens and earth, as if it was creating the UNIVERSE. You are trying to mix modern astronomy with theology.

Modern astronomy and theology go hand in hand. If the bible is to be believed at all, then they MUST mix!

Psalms 19:1-4
1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
3 They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them.
4 Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.

The bible says that what we see in the skies is TRUE and revealing of Gods work! That means that what we learn from astronomy PROVES what God actually did. On what basis do you reject this passage of scripture?

Again, if I am taking scripture "out of context", then you must supply the correct context (in your opinion) in order to demonstrate HOW I'm taking it out of context. You cannot just say it's out of context without offering WHY. By the way, theologians agree that the term "heavens and earth" applies to the entire universe. That's what the phrase would have meant in Hebrew, so how is my interpretation out of context exactly?

Heaven either means God's abode, or the sky.

Actually, heaven has THREE different meanings in the bible. The sky is the first "heaven", outer space is the second "heaven", and the spiritual realm of God and the angels is the third "heaven". When "the heavens" is used (collectively) it refers to all of them, which is everything that exists! Your interpretation conveniently ignores the second definition of it. Now you must explain WHY in this particular passage the word heave does NOT apply to the rest of the universe (despite theologians insistence that it does).

What does 'God created the heaven(s) and the earth' mean?

The phrase 'heaven(s) and earth' in Genesis 1:1 is an example of a Hebrew figure of speech called a merism, in which two opposites are combined into an all-encompassing single concept. Throughout the Bible (e.g. Genesis 14:19, 22; 2 Kings 19:15; Psalm 121:2) this means the totality of creation, not just the Earth and its atmosphere, or our solar system alone. It is used because Hebrew has no word for 'the universe' and can at best say 'the all'.

One of the words in this Hebrew figure of speech is the plural noun shamayim, which signifies the 'upper regions' and may be rendered 'heaven' or 'heavens', depending on the context. The essential meaning is everything in creation apart from the Earth. The word translated 'the earth' is erets, and here refers to the planet on which we now live.

The opening sentence of the Bible ('In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.') is thus a summary statement (the details follow) that God made everything in the universe. The rest of Genesis 1 gives the details of how this happened over a period of six days. - Was Creation's first day the beginning? - CSI

:yes:

To say that it is the universe is nothing more than twisting the verse to suit your belief: nothing more, nothing less.

So you say. Yet I've just given you a quote from the "Creation Studies Institute" that seems to justify my interpretation. But since this will probably not be enough for you, I'll just go straight to the source: the bible!

Psalms 8:3-4
3 When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, 4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?

This passage tells us that the moon and the stars are part of the heavens. So again, on what basis are you to say that they don't? On what basis do you disregard this definition of the heavens? On what basis do you declare my interpretation "out of context". And how do you reconcile any alternate interpretation with the rest of scripture?

opcorn:

 

[captainbryce]

Agreed.


Not only that there are verses in the bible that state a 24 hour day is just that.

Show me! Show me ANY verse in the bible that declares that implies that a day always means 24 hours!

But somehow it gets perverted.

What is worse is it flat states day and night, yet they choose to pervert that as well.

But you're perverting it yourself. If "night" is the opposite of "day", and night represents 12 hours, then day by definition cannot be 24 hours! At most, it can be 12 hours. How do you explain this contradiction? Oh, that's right, you can't! I've asked you this before and you avoided the question.

It just ruins the beauty of these epic pieces.

Beauty is irrelevant! Only truth matters. And the truth is, if you do not take the bible consistently, then it is of no value. A 24 hour interpretation of the word day in Genesis 2:17 contradicts Genesis 5:5. A 24 hour interpretation of the word day in Genesis 1:19 contradicts Psalms 19:1-4. By insisting that scripture contradicts itself, you are calling God a liar, and thereby sacrificing truth for "beauty".

 

[nazz]

Captain, your problem in a nutshell is that you are engaged in eisegesis and not exegesis.

 

[captainbryce]

Captain, your problem in a nutshell is that you are engaged in eisegesis and not exegesis.

You're entitled to your opinion. But your opinion remains unjustified unless you can back it up with an argument of substance. I believe that if there was any validity to this claim, you'd be able to provide an answer for the contradictions I've exposed in the alternative explanation of the text. It's one thing to say that someone else's interpretation is bad; it's quite another thing to actually demonstrate this. The fact that you have yet to do this suggests that you are either unable to, or unwilling to (for whatever reason). Nevertheless, you telling me that I'm engaged in eisegesis is of little value unless you take the time to demonstrate this in some way. And unfortunately, THAT is a problem that YOU share along with several others here. :yes:

 

[nazz]

You're entitled to your opinion. But your opinion remains unjustified unless you can back it up with an argument of substance. I believe that if there was any validity to this claim, you'd be able to provide an answer for the contradictions I've exposed in the alternative explanation of the text. It's one thing to say that someone else's interpretation is bad; it's quite another thing to actually demonstrate this. The fact that you have yet to do this suggests that you are either unable to, or unwilling to (for whatever reason). Nevertheless, you telling me that I'm engaged in eisegesis is of little value unless you take the time to demonstrate this in some way.

I think I and others have done so but you will not agree. You are very committed to a certain belief and interpret the Bible to support that belief. That is what eisegesis is.

 

[outhouse]

Show me! Show me ANY verse in the bible that declares that implies that a day always means 24 hours!

This implies it, quie clear.

“Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath. . . . in it thou shalt not work... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:9-11).

Does the OT imply you work for a thousand years without rest? :tsk: