• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
That's not the way history or fact work. If you want to prove "history" to be true, true as in "factual", then you are required to prove to true with evidences.

Without real evidences are needed, for anything to be factual. The evidences will either support any claim or refute the claim. And no evidences doesn't and never prove any claim to be true. That is why any claim should be by default be "false".

Can you understand that, sonofason?

You are free to believe in anything you like, including the bible, god, angel, prophets, Jesus, heaven, hell, etc, but, and I must stress the BUT, but you have no rights to claim what is fact or what isn't fact, unless you EVIDENCES.

The Bible is historical. You see how easily I can claim my rights. I don't need evidence to make my claims. I have received evidence that supports my claims. I experience God, the God that is written of in the Bible, the Bible I believe is true as a result of the evidence I've received. I will proclaim it from the rooftops, and no one can stop me. It is my right. Whether you believe me doesn't bother me too much. Maybe one day, someone will. And the hope of that happening is enough to keep me on the roof.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
The problem with not taking the whole Bible literally, is that there's no way to tell what is meant literally and what is meant figuratively. It's even more confusing because some things are clearly meant figuratively. Plus the fact that if you don't like the literal meaning, you can always say, "That was meant figuratively." The fact that Christ himself frequently used figurative language complicates the matter even more. Christ at one point said, "Tear this temple down and I will rebuild it in 3 days."-- John 2:19. This confused everybody because they didn't know he was speaking figuratively about his resurrection!

Plus the fact that the temple was indeed torn down in their generation 70AD.

It will be interesting if we should see that temple rebuilt in three days.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that all ancient mythology is factual?

And, when it comes to the Bible, of course for some Christians, it has to be historical, literal fact. But it is the problem of both sides to try and come up with believable evidence that their side isn't lying. Christians have the more difficult task. Did plants get created before the Sun? Did everything get created just a few thousand years ago? Did dinosaurs go on the Ark and only die out recently? Did the Sun stop in the sky? Which if literal, wouldn't prolong the day would it? But whatever, you don't have to prove that. I like that one. Next summer could you get God to prolong a warm cloudless day that has some good waves? I'd appreciate it.

I try not to speculate as to the degree of embellishments that may have occurred through the years. But I believe that these "mythological" stories are directly related to what we see in Genesis 6.
 

allfoak

Alchemist
No need of a Mentor?.....and you understand the gospels?

atta boy...


Yes sir, i understand them as well as i understand myself.

smileycookies_160.jpg
 
Last edited:

greentwiga

Active Member
What is your explanation for the Nephilim? I know some Christians are claiming that bones of giants have been found. Is that for real or a hoax?

In Sumeria, The king had his queen(s). There was also the high priestess. Usually once a year, the king prayed for the local god to inhabit him. The high priestess prayed for the goddess to inhabit her. The old Greek term for her was the heirodule, because the king and her had sex, reenacting the sex between the gods that they thought brought fertility to the soil, animals, and women. The passage preaches against breaking the marriage covenant, covenant with God, and "demon" possession. The heroes of old born to them might be exemplified in Sargon (son of such a priestess) and Nimrod, who seems to be the same man. His deeds were certainly heroic.

It just says, that's when Nephilim walked the earth. They seemed to be a tribe of unusually tall men. Goliath was one. If you use a 1 1/4 foot cubit, he was 7 1/2 feet tall. If you use the Septuagint measurement, he was about 7+ feet tall. To a five foot tall man, 7 1/2 feet tall would be gigantic.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
It just says, that's when Nephilim walked the earth. They seemed to be a tribe of unusually tall men. Goliath was one.


Unsubstantiated. :facepalm:


Nephilim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



J. C. Greenfield mentions that "it has been proposed that the tale of the Nephilim, alluded to in Genesis 6 is based on some of the negative aspects of the apkallu tradition".[43] The apkallu in Sumerian mythology were seven legendary culture heroes from before the Flood, of human descent, but possessing extraordinary wisdom from the gods, and one of the seven apkallu, Adapa, was therefore called "son of Ea", despite his human origin
 

greentwiga

Active Member
Num 13:33 There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Josh 11:22
There were no Anakim left in the land of the sons of Israel; only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod some remained.

1 Sam 17:4
Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (Septuagint: four cubits and a span, cubits could be 20 or 21 inches depending on the country. So his height could be 7'4" max according to the Septuagint.)
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Numbers 13:33
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Num 13:33 There also we saw the Nephilim (the sons of Anak are part of the Nephilim); and we became like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.”
Josh 11:22
There were no Anakim left in the land of the sons of Israel; only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod some remained.

1 Sam 17:4
Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. (Septuagint: four cubits and a span, cubits could be 20 or 21 inches depending on the country. So his height could be 7'4" max according to the Septuagint.)
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Numbers 13:33

Mythology and pseudo history covers most of this, as the authors were far removed from any actual events
 

gnostic

The Lost One
sonofason said:
The Bible is historical. You see how easily I can claim my rights. I don't need evidence to make my claims.

Anyone can make claim, sonofason, but you had stated earlier that the bible was historical "FACT".

Let re-quoted that reply again:

sonofason said:
The Bible is historical fact, and until you prove otherwise, it will always be historical fact.

This...

sonofason said:
I experience God, the God that is written of in the Bible, the Bible I believe is true as a result of the evidence I've received. I will proclaim it from the rooftops, and no one can stop me. It is my right. Whether you believe me doesn't bother me too much. Maybe one day, someone will. And the hope of that happening is enough to keep me on the roof.

...is faith, not evidences, and certainly not history.

You are proclaiming your faith in your belief here, not fact, and certainly not historical facts. Fact required evidences, faith and belief don't require evidences.

Facts required evidences, to back what you have claim. If you think have facts, then you need evidences. Historical facts are history that have been verified to be true, like through archaeological evidences, or by independent written sources. Otherwise, it is not "fact".

And a large part of Genesis is based on pseudo-history, not real history.

If you were to believe the creation myth to be factual history, then you required evidences to support that the Earth is 6000 years young, to support that everything was created within 6 days. You would need evidences to support that man can be made from dust or soil. You would need evidences to support a global flood had occurred 4300 years ago, on every location on earth.

And according to Genesis 10, the city of Uruk and the kingdom of Egypt didn't exist prior to the Flood, which is utter rubbish.

Egypt, including the pyramids all existed, before, during and after the calculated time of the Flood. Egypt existed centuries before this Genesis' Flood, even before dynastic period started in 3100 BCE. There are many artifacts that existed during the predynastic period (4th millennium BCE).

And the city of Uruk, which King James Version called Erech, have been around since 6000 BCE, but began to flourish in 3500-3000 BCE, that's a 1000 years before the supposed Flood. Uruk was flourishing at the time before the Sumerian civilisation began in 3100 BCE. And yet, Genesis 10 claimed that Nimrod, the great grandson of Noah, built this city, after the Flood.

There are physical evidences that support the existence of Egypt and Uruk.

Can you provide evidences that neither exist before the Flood?
 
Last edited:

greentwiga

Active Member
Anyone can make claim, sonofason, but you had stated earlier that the bible was historical "FACT".

Let re-quoted that reply again:



This...



...is faith, not evidences, and certainly not history.

You are proclaiming your faith in your belief here, not fact, and certainly not historical facts. Fact required evidences, faith and belief don't require evidences.

Facts required evidences, to back what you have claim. If you think have facts, then you need evidences. Historical facts are history that have been verified to be true, like through archaeological evidences, or by independent written sources. Otherwise, it is not "fact".

And a large part of Genesis is based on pseudo-history, not real history.

If you were to believe the creation myth to be factual history, then you required evidences to support that the Earth is 6000 years young, to support that everything was created within 6 days. You would need evidences to support that man can be made from dust or soil. You would need evidences to support a global flood had occurred 4300 years ago, on every location on earth.

And according to Genesis 10, the city of Uruk and the kingdom of Egypt didn't exist prior to the Flood, which is utter rubbish.

Egypt, including the pyramids all existed, before, during and after the calculated time of the Flood. Egypt existed centuries before this Genesis' Flood, even before dynastic period started in 3100 BCE. There are many artifacts that existed during the predynastic period (4th millennium BCE).

And the city of Uruk, which King James Version called Erech, have been around since 6000 BCE, but began to flourish in 3500-3000 BCE, that's a 1000 years before the supposed Flood. Uruk was flourishing at the time before the Sumerian civilisation began in 3100 BCE. And yet, Genesis 10 claimed that Nimrod, the great grandson of Noah, built this city, after the Flood.

There are physical evidences that support the existence of Egypt and Uruk.

Can you provide evidences that neither exist before the Flood?

The problem is that, if the Bible is historically accurate, that doesn't mean that Luther's, Calvin's or sonofason's interpretation is right. Their interpretation can be historically inaccurate. Then everyone is arguing, not over the Bible but over the interpretation.

We have a similar problem in the opposite direction. Some on this sight believe that the Bible was written late, say 300-500 BC. They insist that this is historically accurate and don't have to justify their position.

I studied the flood account. I tried to apply the flood to real historical floods. The flooding of the Black Sea, the flooding of the land around the European ice sheets, the flood occurring when the ice dams broke, the flooding of the oceans as the ice melted (including the flooding of the Persian gulf), great river floods, but all didn't fit the description. The only fit was a flood plain or swamp flood. The best fit was a floodplain flood in an unreliable climate. The word translated world is better translated region. The whole region was flooded. Furthermore, according to the Septuagint, the flood occurred near 3,000 BC, at the same date the Sumerians recorded a great flood.

Thor Heyerdahl showed that the Sumerians made great ocean going reed boats. The traded with the Indus valley on them. Later ocean going wood boats became better and replaced them. By 300 BC, all knowledge of the oceanic reed boats seemed to have disappeared. Any mythologist writing then would have used a wooden boat in his description.

BTW Careful when you quote the Bible. The translation is an interpretation. The Hebrew describes reed, not wood.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Yes sir, i understand them as well as i understand myself.

smileycookies_160.jpg

ok....and I want to give you credit for serious introspection.

but so far....here in this forum....
Lots of people seem very sure....of themselves.

Myself included.
 

allfoak

Alchemist
ok....and I want to give you credit for serious introspection.

but so far....here in this forum....
Lots of people seem very sure....of themselves.

Myself included.


it is easy for me to be sure of myself regarding scripture.
I don't tell anyone else what it means to them and i certainly have no problem understanding what it means to me.
That makes for absolute certainty.
:)
 
Top