Hello @allfoak , haven't seen you around in a while. I like the emphasis on the mystical and soul, and rejection of the literal.
-
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!
The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
Hello @allfoak , haven't seen you around in a while. I like the emphasis on the mystical and soul, and rejection of the literal.
Were dinosaurs included? Do you have any scientific evidence to back this up?
Please see posts #125, #126, #127. It would be good to have some answers to the questions raised along with some meaningful commentary on the issues raised above. Thank you in advance..
I doubt too many boat builders who actually work in the industry and know about it would agree with that. But then you are prepared to contradict 99% of scientists so that claim doesn't surprise me.
Strange how Noah's primary contribution to humanity, his incredible knowledge of naval engineering, vanished without a trace, and seafarers returned to their hollow logs and reed rafts. Like a passing mirage, the ark was here one day and gone the next, leaving no historic trace along with the alleged flood. Noah's accomplishments had no impact on the long history of shipbuilding either.
Most animals don't hibernate.
In other words, deny, avoid, and fabricate?
That reminds of school yard taunts in my early childhood.
So why insist on an interpretation of the Bible that makes God into something he isn't?
Like "we're right and you're wrong."
Who's claiming to know the Mind of God now?
Not in the opinion of scientists you don't.
Young Earth creationism directly contradicts the scientific consensus of the scientific community. A 2006 joint statement of InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies enumerated the scientific facts that young Earth creationism contradicts, in particular that the universe, the Earth, and life are billions of years old, that each has undergone continual change over those billions of years, and that life on Earth has evolved from a common primordial origin into the diverse forms observed in the fossil record and present today Evolutionary theory remains the only explanation that fully accounts for all the observations, measurements, data, and evidence discovered in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.
As such, young Earth creationism is dismissed by the academic and the scientific communities. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".
Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia
All untrue of course, like the literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 - 9
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
I do not see how it would not work though. In certain cases, The Bible could be taking a whole lineage of 2, 3 or 4 people, as simply One person.
Anyways, this is why we would need an infallible interpreter. As you may know, Abdulbaha interpreted the verses of Bible as a response to the Questions. I do not think anybody asked this question from Him though. But it is a good question. Anyways, at least for me, my own interpretation works for now. I will look into it more, and if something more i could find out, i will let you know.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
How long it took to build the Ark, and how long did the flood last?
All very interesting. I see your point:
Genealogies of Genesis - Wikipedia
Abdu'l-Baha has said:
As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.
Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 609-610
Oh! That's only about 500 years after Solomon's death. That makes it much more likely that he wrote it.
Those dates puzzled me to. It seems it should have been about 1000 BC. I may need to go back and see if I misread something. In any case, it is older than the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Any fairly competent carpenter can build a barge with 3 decks.
I don't contradict them, other scientist who are just as qualified as they are do that for me. Also, real science contradicts them. There is no genetic way a nose can become a blowhole and legs become fins. Also a land animal evolving into whale, proves "natural selection" to be a farce.
DUUH. Wood is easily destroyed by weather and time. It was not her one day and gone the next. The flood happened over4000 years ago.It does not take knowledge of naval engineering to build a barge.
You seem to keep forgetting that I have an omnipotent God.
IOW limit God's omnipotence.
If my disagreeing with you seems like taunts, your skin is way to thin or you think you are omniscient.
Cafeteria theology never gets it right. What qualifies you to determine what is right about God and what is not?
You are as guilty of that as I am.
I get my views from what God says, you get yours for your own opinions.
For years I have challenged evos to cut and paste evidence from the links they reference. To date not one single one has accepted my challenge. In 5 minuets they could prove me wrong. Why don't the do it? Because there is no scientific evidence that supports evolution. Would you like to be the first to show everyone I am wrong? I doubt it, because you would prove I am right.
Only untrue to those who do not understand "omnipotence."
Name one thing in those chapters that is beyond God ability to do exactly what it says. You say you believe God is omnipotent, but actually you don't or you would not make such statements.
Attribution is not evidence.
So is your comment.
Few things are as pathetic as willful ignorance.
There are, however, Hebrew texts that evidence an earlier date.
Exactly! And this is precisely why they will never be considered seriously. They *think* they understand what a deity has said. They *think* that there is a deity that said it. But they have no *evidence* to back up these claims. Furthermore, they are entirely willing to ignore *any* and *all* evidence that contradicts their mythology.
By saying what they have said, they immediately take themselves out of any reasonable, rational, civilized discussion.
The fossils showed how it happened. LOOK at the evidence. Not just the words, but the evidence.
No, I will not cut and paste. You ignore the evidence and don't want to do any real work to find it. You seem to be happy in your ignorance. If you don't do the work, you will remain in ignorance.
But the evidence is out there and I gave you links to it. It is up to you to pursue it. I can't bring a physical fossil into this forum nor teach you about anatomy and physiology so that you can understand what the evidence says. I can point to books and museums and the evidence, but if you refuse to look at it and learn enough to understand it, there is nothing I or anyone else can do.
I was referring specifically to Biblical texts. Prior to ~600-700 BCE there have been found fragmentary evidence, pottery pieces and a few stella, of an evolving Hebrew script from Canaanite/Ugarit script. Taking the evolution of script as a whole the oldest is Babylonian cuneiform, than Canaanite/Ugarit alphabetical cuneiform to primitive alphabet script.
That English didn't exist 2000 years ago? Really? because we have extensive documentation of how it arose from Anglo-Saxon and other languages.
Well, it doesn't show how the first languages originated, but it does show how languages like French, English, and Spanish came into being. NONE of those existed 2000 years ago.
Denial isn't a good way to deal with evidence.
As was I.
Scientific evidence to back what up, specifically?
The Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs; it appears from the scientific evidence they may have went extinct before God created Adam.
I don't understand what issues you refer to.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
This one has been round the block and more here at RF without doubt.
I've always assumed some of these stories to be myths, but I understand that many do not. So lets investigate three stories in particular.
(1) The story of creation in seven days as recorded in Genesis 1.
Should we take this as being literally true? If so how long ago did it all take place?
(2) The story Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3.
Should we regard this as literally true? If not what is the significance of it all?
(3) The story of Noah building an Ark and the great flood as recorded in Genesis 6 - 9. Did this all actually happen or did the author of Genesis have something else in mind?
I've included this in the science and religion category so we could consider the scientific evidence that would support or refute either perspective.
Many people where I live (New Zealand) don't believe any of it, let alone being literally true. I don't live in the USA where many think differently.
I'm a Baha'i who believes in the same God, Bible, and Jesus as the Christians. I view some aspects of the Bible allegorically, whereas my Christian brothers and sisters might interpret literally.
Always happy to have a friendly chat about God's word with my coreligionists or atheists alike.
As a Christian I haven't studied this particular claim but I it is commonly known that the Flood narrative has its literary source in Babylonian myth. I am also discovering in my own studies that The Mahabharata is either a source for or had a common source with the narrative of the patriarchs. So my vote is clearly for the literary/mythological source of Genesis and not a historial one...at least not one that archeology or geology can support.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Right off the bat, atheists mocked and rejected the very concept of a creation event as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang'- they preferred static models (no creation = no creator)
so I think we have to at least give credit to Genesis for being on the right side of the greatest scientific discovery of all time..
It goes on to correctly describe an Earth of one great ocean, then one ocean and one land mass, animal life beginning in the sea and developing thereafter in distinct sudden stages, not slow gradual increments as Darwin once predicted.
Also correctly compares the number of stars with grains of sand
All lucky guesses? perhaps but I think there are less improbable explanations..
allfoak
Alchemist
In a world in which the focus is primarily on the material, there must be keepers of the flame or it would go out.
Thank you for the kind greeting.
It's more than you have.
Only to thoe ho lack understanding.
[/QUOTE]Few things are as pathetic as willful ignorance.[/QUOTE]
On thing is worse, Saying someone is willful ignorant out of their own ignorance.