Non-literal Genesis Evidences

[Dawnofhope]

The bible says the whole earth was flooded. Only trouble is we judge that statement by our own definitions. The earth was a very small place in the Bronze Age. The earth in the Gospels was the Roman empire (not the pagans, Parthians etc..)
We used to think the universe was everything there is - now we talk about many universes. That definition changed over 20 years. The bible goes back about 4,000 years.

In that case maybe there were other people outside the known world of the garden of Eden, and some of those people existed before Adam and Eve.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So Wikipedia is your infallible source, is it?

No, but the authors tell a much more compelling story than the words you quote from the book of Jubilee.

 

[exchemist]

Yes...but
to me, as non-believer in the absoluteness of the Bible, official cannons mean very little.
so, the Book of Jubilees , as quoted by @The Anointed , makes much sense to me as a reasonable explanation.

Don't you think you might need to read up on the work of archaeologists and biblical scholars a bit, before forming a conclusion?

 

[PruePhillip]

We all choose the narrative and explanation that works best for each of us.

The book of Jubilee appears to be myth to explain a myth. Let’s have talking serpents, the first woman created out of a rib, a young earth, and animals throughout the world walking side by side to escape a flood that covers the whole earth. It’s wonderful to imagine...

And how about the heaven and earth formed by God
And our earth as an oceanic cloud planet
With the continents emerging
And life forming, first on "land" (fresh water) and then in the sea.
And from the sea came birds as well as sea creatures
and the last thing to form was man.
That is actually the narrative of science, as well as Genesis.
How did the bible know?

 

[The Anointed]

No, but the authors tell a much more compelling story than the words you quote from the book of Jubilee.

The book of Jubilees confirms that Luke was correct in saying that Cainan and not Arpachshad was the father of Shelah, proving the Jewish canon, and the Roman OT to be erroneous.

 

[exchemist]

And how about the heaven and earth formed by God
And our earth as an oceanic cloud planet
With the continents emerging
And life forming, first on "land" (fresh water) and then in the sea.
And from the sea came birds as well as sea creatures
and the last thing to form was man.
That is actually the narrative of science, as well as Genesis.
How did the bible know?

The same way it "knew" that the Earth, day and night and the plants all existed before the sun was made, I suppose.

And by the way, according to Chapter 2 of Genesis, Man was created before the animals.

Lastly, the evidence is that life seems to have arisen in the seas: certainly not in fresh water. Our blood is salty for instance.

So just, ahem, a few slight problems.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And how about the heaven and earth formed by God
And our earth as an oceanic cloud planet
With the continents emerging
And life forming, first on "land" (fresh water) and then in the sea.
And from the sea came birds as well as sea creatures
and the last thing to form was man.
That is actually the narrative of science, as well as Genesis.
How did the bible know?

The biblical narrative provides the poetry and prose, while science tells us the earth is over 4 billion years old.
I think you mean how come the authors of genesis were inspired to write what they wrote? We can safely assume none of them were there to witness the events they wrote about. Don't you?

 

[exchemist]

The biblical narrative provides the poetry and prose, while science tells us the earth is over 4 millions years old.
I think you mean how come the authors of genesis were inspired to write what they wrote? We can safely assume none of them were there to witness the events they wrote about. Don't you?

Exactly. (You mean 4 billion years, I think.)

 

[The Anointed]

The biblical narrative provides the poetry and prose, while science tells us the earth is over 4 millions years old.
I think you mean how come the authors of genesis were inspired to write what they wrote? We can safely assume none of them were there to witness the events they wrote about. Don't you?

How did the ancients know that the earth was created before the sun and that life had begun to evolve on earth before the creation of the sun.

 

[Jedster]

Don't you think you might need to read up on the work of archaeologists and biblical scholars a bit, before forming a conclusion?

For those who believe that the Bible contains historic facts, then the Book of Jubilee could contain information that is not in the Bible.
That is what I meant.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Exactly. (You mean 4 billion years, I think.)

Harmony of science and religion is an essential principle in my faith and I understand that Catholics talk a very pragmatic and sensible approach too. The fundamentalists who insist on interpreting so much literally are bad look for the Christianity but there are plenty of moderates such as yourself to provide balance and perspective.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How did the ancients know that the earth was created before the sun and that life had begun to evolve on earth before the creation of the sun.

I have no issue with God having inspired any of the books that make up the bible. Its when sacred writing such as some of the stories in genesis are interpreted literally rather than allegorically I raise questions.

 

[PruePhillip]

The biblical narrative provides the poetry and prose, while science tells us the earth is over 4 billion years old.
I think you mean how come the authors of genesis were inspired to write what they wrote? We can safely assume none of them were there to witness the events they wrote about. Don't you?

Well, the writers of the bible also wrote about the cruel exile and eventual return of the Jews to Israel.
That nation is there for you to see today. The beginning of that return in 1897 was greeted with derision by most people.
Whoever wrote Genesis said this exile would happen after the Messiah is rejected.

ps the seven days I believe to be symbolic - like much biblical literature. The last mystery, that of whether life came from the land or the sea was agreed upon just this year - life didn't emerge from the sea but the land, or more specifically, the fresh water. All others stages have been verified over the past generation.

 

[PruePhillip]

How did the ancients know that the earth was created before the sun and that life had begun to evolve on earth before the creation of the sun.

NASA calls the Saturnian moon Titan a "Precursor Earth", that is, a liquid planet shrouded in dense clouds. Just this year it has been determined that most "eath-like planets" are water worlds. Our Earth was a dark water world. The text is jumbled, but Genesis DOES say "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" in the second verse, if I recall, it looks at this newly formed Earth.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The book of Jubilees confirms that Luke was correct in saying that Cainan and not Arpachshad was the father of Shelah, proving the Jewish canon, and the Roman OT to be erroneous.

confirms ... ?

correct ... ?​

proving ... ?​

This is what happens when you have ignorance driving inference. That people are able to spew such drivel never ceases to amaze me.

 

[PruePhillip]

The same way it "knew" that the Earth, day and night and the plants all existed before the sun was made, I suppose.

And by the way, according to Chapter 2 of Genesis, Man was created before the animals.

Lastly, the evidence is that life seems to have arisen in the seas: certainly not in fresh water. Our blood is salty for instance.

So just, ahem, a few slight problems.

Yes, there's 'salt' in our cells. But scientists have concluded, this year, that the first cell couldn't have kick started in salt. But once there was a living cell it promptly invaded the oceans - hence our salty body.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

ps the seven days I believe to be symbolic - like much biblical literature.

On what basis do you think either the belief or the pronouncement credible?

 

[PruePhillip]

On what basis do you think either the belief or the pronouncement credible?

The bible is a subtle mix of symbolic and literal. It is up to the reader to divine the two.
IMO the bible employs symbolic language around literal, historic events.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The bible is a subtle mix of symbolic and literal. It is up to the reader to divine the two.
IMO the bible employs symbolic language around literal, historic events.

Not all opinions are created equal. Why should yours be deemed credible?

 

[exchemist]

Yes, there's 'salt' in our cells. But scientists have concluded, this year, that the first cell couldn't have kick started in salt. But once there was a living cell it promptly invaded the oceans - hence our salty body.

Oh that's new to me. How interesting. Can you refer me to a source to read about it?