Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[outhouse]

you have to study and learn to see what it means in a deeper level.

.

Faulty methodology.

Looking for imaginative garbage that is not there, nor intended by the author based on ones ignorance of the text. Helps no one.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Our soul is the offspring of God and we are the offspring of our soul.
Our soul is eternal and knows all.

We are a separate consciousness from our soul.
Most don't have the capacity to know the difference.

Ok... I like. That is good. Well done! It is said well.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Read it again. What do you mean by "literalness?" Can you explain the empirical evidence you have for this "literalness?" What comparisons, criticisms, observations can you present to bolster your position? Any? If there's no evidence of the literal neater of the accounts, your appellation of "literal" is based solely on some feel-good belief.

It said this:

{ Posted by Robert.Evans View Post
Genesis is spoken by people thousands of years ago with the ability they had then. Because all things work in a fractal way, what they say is true, though somewhat short in description. When one understands its origins, from consciousness, then it makes sense. To try and force it into a physical realm as we live in will not work as we think. Genesis is scripture as the rest of the book is, and has to be read that way... then the literalness of it will shine through, even though it will not be seen in a worldly literal way. That is just teh way it is }

It is spiritually discerned.

Why does it have to have physical evidence? Show me a mind.

 

[sojourner]

Ok... I like. That is good. Well done! It is said well.

Except that "soul-knowledge" is never equated with empirical knowledge. "Soul-knowledge" is highly intuitive, not sensory. Therefore, such knowledge cannot substitute for scholastic knowledge of the texts. It's a poor excuse for an argument and a gross misappropriation of a theological concept.

 

[sojourner]

It said this:

{ Posted by Robert.Evans View Post
Genesis is spoken by people thousands of years ago with the ability they had then. Because all things work in a fractal way, what they say is true, though somewhat short in description. When one understands its origins, from consciousness, then it makes sense. To try and force it into a physical realm as we live in will not work as we think. Genesis is scripture as the rest of the book is, and has to be read that way... then the literalness of it will shine through, even though it will not be seen in a worldly literal way. That is just teh way it is }

It is spiritually discerned.

Why does it have to have physical evidence? Show me a mind.

It needs to have physical evidence for the same reason that claiming evil spirits are responsible for epilepsy needs physical evidence.

Scripture is read through the exegetical method, because that's the only way we can arrive at what the author likely meant to say, and why he may have said, and in what manner he intended to say it. Any other treatment is wishful thinking and willful ignorance, unless one is engaged in some sort of lectio divina.

 

[allfoak]

:biglaugh:


How about making a statement you can substantiate?

Rather than judge something you know nothing about, let me make a suggestion.

When you have spent years as a vegetarian, used herbs to restore your health, and refine your body, in order for your mind to even begin to know that you have a soul, come back and talk to me.

You see, what i have already substantiated and could be substantiated by you but will never will be is because people like yourself think you know something already.
This is the reason that the things i say fall on deaf ears and even get ridiculed.
Don't worry no persecution complex here.
Everyone is entitled to their perspective.

 

[outhouse]

in order for your mind to even begin to know that you have a soul

.

Stop the unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You have no evidence for a soul, and at this time they do not exist.

Still waiting for you to substantiate your claim. :sleep:

 

[outhouse]

When you have spent years as a vegetarian, used herbs to restore your health, .

:biglaugh:


Like diet changes have anything to do with mythology.

 

[sojourner]

Rather than judge something you know nothing about, let me make a suggestion.

When you have spent years as a vegetarian, used herbs to restore your health, and refine your body, in order for your mind to even begin to know that you have a soul, come back and talk to me.

You see, what i have already substantiated and could be substantiated by you but will never will be is because people like yourself think you know something already.
This is the reason that the things i say fall on deaf ears and even get ridiculed.
Don't worry no persecution complex here.
Everyone is entitled to their perspective.

Depends on what kind of "knowing" you're claiming. Inner intuition is laudable, but it's wholly different from empirical knowledge. An intuitive knowledge of the texts must be informed by empirical knowledge, otherwise it's just a lot of guesswork, because it's only through empirical knowledge that the texts can be intuited.

 

[`mud]

On my ears also....
Get a life !

 

[allfoak]

Well Outhouse,
i can see by looking over some of the things that you say to others here on this forum that you at least treat everyone the same.
I would appreciate it if you would just ignore me please so i don't have to ignore you.

 

[allfoak]

Depends on what kind of "knowing" you're claiming. Inner intuition is laudable, but it's wholly different from empirical knowledge. An intuitive knowledge of the texts must be informed by empirical knowledge, otherwise it's just a lot of guesswork, because it's only through empirical knowledge that the texts can be intuited.

The kind of knowing i am talking about only comes from empirical knowledge.

 

[gnostic]

A day, by the way, is a luminary (light). It does NOT say it is a 24 hour period. That is what we assume. Anyone going to the Pole will see that a day lasts for six months, and in outer space, a day may be a completely different amount of time. Time is relative.

Why do creationist make this sort of argument, without understanding the science behind it?

In any case, most people don't live in the polar regions, and the Genesis weren't written for those who do. Genesis was only written for one group of people originally - the Israelites - and none of them live there.

And the creation myth of Genesis never mention only hours. Genesis 1 only divided a day, between light and darkness, and respectively between morning and evening (or night).

But how do you daylight or morning without the sun; because the sun was created till the 4th day of creation...

Genesis 1:5 was very specific that the light was called "day" and darkness called "night" (as well as to morning and evening in 1:5, meaning that this light and day is referring to "daylight", but how do you you get daylight without the sun?

...and if you are one of those crazy Christian creationists who believe in Peter's verse that one day equals to one thousand years and so on, then that mean 3000 years of no sun. That 3000 years of daylight and morning without the sun. How do you create vegetation (3rd day) and survive for a thousand years before the sun existed?

Reading Genesis 1 & 2, it is clear that it is neither a science book, nor a history book.

 

[sojourner]

The kind of knowing i am talking about only comes from empirical knowledge.

If that's the case, then only an exegetical approach will give you the best possible knowledge of what the texts are saying, so that you can formulate an honest interpretation.

 

[allfoak]

If that's the case, then only an exegetical approach will give you the best possible knowledge of what the texts are saying, so that you can formulate an honest interpretation.

I am apparently not understanding you.

empirical :

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

I am talking about definition #2.

 

[outhouse]

I am apparently not understanding you.



I am talking about definition #2.

So you wish to pervert the definition, to force fit your guesses.

 

[sojourner]

So you wish to pervert the definition, to force fit your guesses.

You beat me to it.

 

[sojourner]

I am apparently not understanding you.



I am talking about definition #2.

And that experience and observation is obtained through exegesis, not guesswork.

 

[outhouse]

Well Outhouse,
i can see by looking over some of the things that you say to others here on this forum that you at least treat everyone the same.
.

I treat those ignorant to biblical education and knowledge the same, who make ignorant statements of certainty.

Their error will be noted.

 

[greentwiga]

Would you consider a chemical reaction becoming self-aware....a miracle?
If not....an intended creation?

There is God's creation. I obeys the laws that God made. Anything that is a result of obeying those laws is not a miracle. When God acts to do something that is different from the laws being obeyed is a miracle. Walking on water, healing a man born blind without medical treatment, iron axe floating on water. Those are miracles. The creation of life from inanimate chemicals could have been a miracle. God could have put the universe together so that life would occur by obeying the laws. Don't matter to me. Either way, God made life. I see no reason I have to find miracles. I am quite content with my understanding of Genesis 1-4 to have humans having arisen as a result of evolution, and Adam being born naturally and just the first "saved" man under a new system. Or Mankind could have arisen as a result of a miracle. Content either way.