Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Thief]

Huh? How does that even follow from what you stated in your last post?? Or from what I said in my last post?

Just because Genesis has merit does not mean that it is a literal account of the creative process. Genesis has merit as a theological document, not a scientific document.

I never claimed that you don't understand Genesis. But if you claim Genesis is such a literal account, I have no choice now but to claim that you don't understand the literary nature of Genesis -- or that you're making a claim that doesn't jibe with your understanding. The first is ignorance. The second is deception.

Not at all.
Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Yes it does.

 

[greentwiga]

One of the things about Genesis' Abraham (then known as Abram) and Lot in regard to Sodom and Gomorrah was that they were involved in the war between the Cities of the Plain (valley of the Jordan river or the valley of the Dead Sea, or the Valley of Siddim) and that of Chedorlaomer of Elam (Genesis 14). Chedorlaomer supposedly took this Jordanian plain and have ruled this region for 13 years.

Now here's the thing, greentwiga. Historically, Elam was a region situated between eastern shore of the Persian Gulf and the Zagros Mountains, in what is now south-west Iran (a distance of over 2000 km from the western border of Elam to the Dead Sea). No where in its Bronze Age history was there any Elamite presence in Canaan, let alone ruling the Valley of Siddim for 13 years, at some times between 1800-1700 BCE.

In Elam, in that period, it was under Eparti dynasty (c. 1970 - 1770 BCE). And the Elamites, during the Old Babylonian period (2000-1600 BCE), were frequently at wars with its neighbours, in Mesopotamian Babylonia or others. The dynasty ended with the Kassites conquering both Elam and Babylonia.

Before the 2nd millennium BCE, there have being a number of tussles between the Elamites and with Akaddians, first (2350-2200 BCE), then with on-and-off with Sumerian cities, with the Guitians. In one of these tussles in the early 2nd millennium BCE, Elam did ended the famous Sumerian 3rd dynasty of Ur; Ur's last king was Ibbi-Sin (1963 - 1940 BCE), but the Elamites were no where near Canaan.

The Elamites may have traveled to the Judah, along with other Iranian people - the Persians and the Medes - during the Achaemenid dynasty (550 - 330 BCE), but not during the Bronze Age.

Why would any king of Elam be interested in land over 2000 km away, when it had frequent troubles closer to home?

Furthermore, there is historically, no Elamite king by the name - Chedorlaomer, especially in the Eparti dynasty.

Genesis 14 has no basis of history; it is just a myth trying to elevate a legendary semi-nomadic patriarch, named Abraham, who could some how best a king that never existed, of some distant lands.

That is a very good point. I have not researched that aspect. Just a couple of points. Since the original Semitic uses just consonants, there can be confusion between two groups. Foe example Cush seems to refer to both Ethiopians and Kassites, Two people groups who lived in very different places. Also, the ruler of a city that is ruled by a larger entity is also called King. In favor of your point is that Shinar refers to the land of Sumer, next to Elam. I must disagree with you in one small point, they were not interested in land but in loot. Once again, very good point that I'll keep in mind to research.

 

[greentwiga]

Huh? How does that even follow from what you stated in your last post?? Or from what I said in my last post?

Just because Genesis has merit does not mean that it is a literal account of the creative process. Genesis has merit as a theological document, not a scientific document.

I never claimed that you don't understand Genesis. But if you claim Genesis is such a literal account, I have no choice now but to claim that you don't understand the literary nature of Genesis -- or that you're making a claim that doesn't jibe with your understanding. The first is ignorance. The second is deception.

Gen 1 is so devoid of facts that it can be applied to many possibilities. Thus, it has much more merit as a theological document. Gen 2, though, is chock a block full of facts. One still can't prove that Adam and Eve were not myth, but the setting can only be at the location and time of the domestication of plants. Much of the passage can be shown to be literal.

 

[sojourner]

Not at all.
Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Yes it does.

That doesn't mean that it's a science text.

What are those "earmarks," BTW?

 

[sojourner]

Gen 1 is so devoid of facts that it can be applied to many possibilities. Thus, it has much more merit as a theological document. Gen 2, though, is chock a block full of facts. One still can't prove that Adam and Eve were not myth, but the setting can only be at the location and time of the domestication of plants. Much of the passage can be shown to be literal.

Oh? Just what, precisely, are those "facts?" and where is the proof for those "facts?" Trot them out, please.

 

[metis]

Gen 1 is so devoid of facts that it can be applied to many possibilities. Thus, it has much more merit as a theological document. Gen 2, though, is chock a block full of facts. One still can't prove that Adam and Eve were not myth, but the setting can only be at the location and time of the domestication of plants. Much of the passage can be shown to be literal.

The domestication of plants has a long history with steps that preceded it. Most of us in Judaism tend to see this as allegory that had a Babylonian narrative as its base, but then it appears that we took that narrative and modified it to teach our own morals and values. This is not at all an unusual interaction between cultures, btw.

 

[gnostic]

Not at all.
Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Yes it does.

Thief. When a scientist do an experiment, it is to test a hypothesis, to see if the prediction(s) made within the hypothesis is "valid" or "applicable" to reality, or not.

If you think Genesis 2 as a science experiment, then this God of yours is not certain at all of the outcome. This "science experiment" sort of refute the Christian notion that God is "omniscient" and "omnipotent".

Science is a technique and processes for people to gather knowledge, to seek possible explanation(s) for phenomenon, and test if the explanation is valid or not. A god that is all-knowing wouldn't to experiment; a god wouldn't need to seek information since he should already have it.

You wouldn't need to "experiment" or to "test" if you are supposed to be "all-knowing".

When I was thinking of joining a church when I was a teenager, they tried to hammer me the concept that God is perfect, all-knowing and all-powerful; that there are no limits to what he can do. This "science experiment" as you would call it, contradict his perfection, and his many omni- attributes.

Why would a God would need to experiment? Is he not perfect in all knowledge and in perfectly knowing all outcomes of "what is to come"?

AND WHY would a god need to punish Adam and Eve for disobedience should his experiment "fail"? You don't reward or punish an experiment subject if it succeed or fail in the test, especially if it is supposed to be a "science experiment" in the 1st place. Doing so (punishing a subject), a person is trying to effect the outcome to his liking, is not a scientist, but is an imbecile.

Good on you mate! You have just made God in a human, with all the limitations and frailty of an imperfect human.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thief. When a scientist do an experiment, it is to test a hypothesis, to see if the prediction(s) made within the hypothesis is "valid" or "applicable" to reality, or not.

If you think Genesis 2 as a science experiment, then this God of yours is not certain at all of the outcome. This "science experiment" sort of refute the Christian notion that God is "omniscient" and "omnipotent".

Science is a technique and processes for people to gather knowledge, to seek possible explanation(s) for phenomenon, and test if the explanation is valid or not. A god that is all-knowing wouldn't to experiment; a god wouldn't need to seek information since he should already have it.

You wouldn't need to "experiment" or to "test" if you are supposed to be "all-knowing".

When I was thinking of joining a church when I was a teenager, they tried to hammer me the concept that God is perfect, all-knowing and all-powerful; that there are no limits to what he can do. This "science experiment" as you would call it, contradict his perfection, and his many omni- attributes.

Why would a God would need to experiment? Is he not perfect in all knowledge and in perfectly knowing all outcomes of "what is to come"?

AND WHY would a god need to punish Adam and Eve for disobedience should his experiment "fail"? You don't reward or punish an experiment subject if it succeed or fail in the test, especially if it is supposed to be a "science experiment" in the 1st place. Doing so (punishing a subject), a person is trying to the outcome to his liking, is not a scientist, but is an imbecile.

Good on you mate! You have just made God in a human, with all the limitations and frailty of an imperfect human.

Exactly.....:yes:

 

[Thief]

Thief. When a scientist do an experiment, it is to test a hypothesis, to see if the prediction(s) made within the hypothesis is "valid" or "applicable" to reality, or not.

If you think Genesis 2 as a science experiment, then this God of yours is not certain at all of the outcome. This "science experiment" sort of refute the Christian notion that God is "omniscient" and "omnipotent".

Science is a technique and processes for people to gather knowledge, to seek possible explanation(s) for phenomenon, and test if the explanation is valid or not. A god that is all-knowing wouldn't to experiment; a god wouldn't need to seek information since he should already have it.

You wouldn't need to "experiment" or to "test" if you are supposed to be "all-knowing".

When I was thinking of joining a church when I was a teenager, they tried to hammer me the concept that God is perfect, all-knowing and all-powerful; that there are no limits to what he can do. This "science experiment" as you would call it, contradict his perfection, and his many omni- attributes.

Why would a God would need to experiment? Is he not perfect in all knowledge and in perfectly knowing all outcomes of "what is to come"?

AND WHY would a god need to punish Adam and Eve for disobedience should his experiment "fail"? You don't reward or punish an experiment subject if it succeed or fail in the test, especially if it is supposed to be a "science experiment" in the 1st place. Doing so (punishing a subject), a person is trying to effect the outcome to his liking, is not a scientist, but is an imbecile.

Good on you mate! You have just made God in a human, with all the limitations and frailty of an imperfect human.

Free will would be the item at hand.
Installing freewill into a lesser being?
And you think the outcome is predictable?

YEAH RIGHT!

I don't think you have considered the 'intent'.......thoroughly.

 

[Bunyip]

Free will would be the item at hand.
Installing freewill into a lesser being?
And you think the outcome is predictable?

YEAH RIGHT!

I don't think you have considered the 'intent'.......thoroughly.

Of course it would be predictable - unless the experimenter is not god.

 

[gnostic]

Free will would be the item at hand.
Installing freewill into a lesser being?
And you think the outcome is predictable?

YEAH RIGHT!

I don't think you have considered the 'intent'.......thoroughly.

A bit of free will is not or should not pose a problem for a god who supposed to be omniscient.

Second of all, according to the Genesis, there were only TWO PEOPLE in the Garden of Eden. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to determine two possible outcomes - to obey or to disobey God's commandment to not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Lastly, God supposedly planted this forbidden Tree in the centre of the Eden, which was within easy reach of Adam and Eve. If God seriously didn't want them to eat from this Tree, why didn't he put barrier that prevent Eve to even touching the fruit? Why did God put this angel with the flaming sword in front of the Tree? Why make it so easy for them to disobey? Is God stupid or something?

 

[CG Didymus]

A bit of free will is not or should not pose a problem for a god who supposed to be omniscient.

Second of all, according to the Genesis, there were only TWO PEOPLE in the Garden of Eden. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to determine two possible outcomes - to obey or to disobey God's commandment to not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Lastly, God supposedly planted this forbidden Tree in the centre of the Eden, which was within easy reach of Adam and Eve. If God seriously didn't want them to eat from this Tree, why didn't he put barrier that prevent Eve to even touching the fruit? Why did God put this angel with the flaming sword in front of the Tree? Why make it so easy for them to disobey? Is God stupid or something?

Gnostic, you are so right. If this is real, and not a fable, (I know Christians don't like me saying it's a "myth"), then God let it happen. He knew. He knows all. He was watching and didn't bother to stop it. He knew the Adversary was going to dress up like a snake and successfully tempt Eve, but didn't want to prevent him. Where was Jesus during this time? God could have sent his son teach them how to live and be obedient. He could have filled them with God, The Holy Spirit, and clothed them with "the armor" of God, so that they could resist the wiles of the devil. But no.

Or, it is a fable and has nothing to do with reality, but it still teaches a message... that there are consequences for disobeying God. But, since it is believed, then for all intents and purposes, no matter how silly it is to believe it, then, for them, it is real. The message is still there, but they're stuck believing and trying to prove ridiculous things as historical fact. Like a talking snake? Seriously Christians, you don't believe that it's only a myth? Oh, I mean, fable?

 

[greentwiga]

Oh? Just what, precisely, are those "facts?" and where is the proof for those "facts?" Trot them out, please.

There were no plants of the field because there was no rain

There were no plants of the field because there was no man to cultivate them

The garden was on a mountain

The garden divided into four streams that included the Tigris and Euphrates.

The garden was where fig trees grew.

The garden was near plants were grown to make bread.

There is only one time when domesticated plants were not grown and then were grown. It is the time of a drought far worse that any in history, the end of the Younger Dryas. There is only one mountain that divides into four rivers inc the Tigris and Euphrates and where Figs and Wheat grows, Karacadag. This is exactly when and where scientists say wheat and probably the whole farming package was domesticated.

 

[Thief]

A bit of free will is not or should not pose a problem for a god who supposed to be omniscient.

Second of all, according to the Genesis, there were only TWO PEOPLE in the Garden of Eden. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to determine two possible outcomes - to obey or to disobey God's commandment to not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Lastly, God supposedly planted this forbidden Tree in the centre of the Eden, which was within easy reach of Adam and Eve. If God seriously didn't want them to eat from this Tree, why didn't he put barrier that prevent Eve to even touching the fruit? Why did God put this angel with the flaming sword in front of the Tree? Why make it so easy for them to disobey? Is God stupid or something?

and there was a war in heaven....and one third of heaven fell.

So I've heard.

Stupid?....no.
But the rest of us....and few in particular....seem hesitant to get on board!

 

[Thief]

Of course it would be predictable - unless the experimenter is not god.

What?....you've never set off a firework just to see what happens?
even if you anticipate a star burst....can you ever be sure?

Maybe you haven't really thought about it.
How about using some of that freewill in your head....first.

 

[outhouse]

There were no plants of the field because there was no rain

There were no plants of the field because there was no man to cultivate them

The garden was on a mountain

The garden divided into four streams that included the Tigris and Euphrates.

The garden was where fig trees grew.

The garden was near plants were grown to make bread.

.

he said facts not fantasy

 

[Thief]

That doesn't mean that it's a science text.

What are those "earmarks," BTW?

Chosen specimen, isolated conditions, examination, anesthesia, surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation......a test...and release into the environment.

 

[Bunyip]

What?....you've never set off a firework just to see what happens?
even if you anticipate a star burst....can you ever be sure?

Maybe you haven't really thought about it.
How about using some of that freewill in your head....first.

How about thinking your responses through a little harder? Setting off fireworks to see what happens is human curiosity - curiosity is a function of not being all knowing.

God would not need to experiment.

 

[Bunyip]

Chosen specimen, isolated conditions, examination, anesthesia, surgery, cloning, genetic manipulation......a test...and release into the environment.

You describe a non-god entity, a scientist. People conduct experiments to learn, God would not need to learn if he is all knowing.

 

[Thief]

You describe a non-god entity, a scientist. People conduct experiments to learn, God would not need to learn if he is all knowing.

Never knew anyone to go do...whatever....just to see what happens?
Such is freewill.

"Let us make Man in our image."