The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

Polymath257 · May 6, 2017

omega2xx said:
There are several causes for a lack of the ability to inter breed, but when this happened there is no new species.

Wrong. The *definition* of a biological species is an interbreeding population. When the population splits and no longer interbreeds, you have two populations that can adapt independently.

IMO, if there some intermediates, they would show them, but that is not important. You still can't explain how a nose can become a blowhole, and saying a land animal that goes into water to find food will become a sea animal is scientifically absurd.

Again, wrong. We see former land animals becoming sea creatures all around us: seals, walruses, hippos, etc. Now, it is *possible* their progression to the sea will be interrupted, but they are all mammals becoming more adapted to the sea and thereby sea creatures.

Going into the sea to find food makes it more likely that any adaptation to the sea will be enhanced and preserved. Again, the changes don't happen in one generation, or even one hundred.

And again, a blowhole is just a nostril at the top of the head.

I don't think that is it purpose, although what I said could be taken that way. I was really saying the DNA identifies animals of he same species,

It can be *used* that way because species separate, stop interbreeding, and thereby develop separately, acquiring different mutations and characteristics that we can look for in the DNA.

Polymath257 · May 6, 2017

omega2xx said:
Tee chart I looked at showed hippo to pakicetus with no intermediates. However take as many generations as you want, Genetics will not allow it. You even agreed that time will not change the law of genetics.

Yes. it was a cladogram. Hippos and other artiodactyls split off from those that became whales. if you don't understand the term 'artiodactyl', it is a good chance for you to learn a new word.

From wikipedia:

"A cladogram (from Greek clados "branch" and gramma "character") is a diagram used in cladistics to show relations among organisms. A cladogram is not, however, an evolutionary tree because it does not show how ancestors are related to descendants, nor does it show how much they have changed; many evolutionary trees can be inferred from a single cladogram.[1][2][3][4][5] A cladogram uses lines that branch off in different directions ending at a clade, a groups of organisms with a last common ancestor."

Notice that a cladogram is NOT an evolutionary tree, but carries the same information. What you saw was a cladogram.

"The even-toed ungulates (Artiodactyla, from Greek ἄρτιος (ártios), meaning 'even', and δάκτυλος (dáktylos), meaning 'finger/toe') are ungulates (hoofed animals) whose weight is borne equally by the third and fourth toes. By contrast, odd-toed ungulates, such as horses, bear their weight primarily on their third toe. The aquatic cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) evolved from within even-toed ungulates, and therefore modern taxonomic classification sometimes combines Artiodactyla and Cetacea into Cetartiodactyla."

So, for example, hippos are artiodactyls.

And, in spite of your biases, genetics not only allows the change in species, it practically requires it when the environment changes significantly over enough time.

Once upon a time........and they lived hap;ily ever after until the were ask to provide some evidence. Do you really not realize nothing you said is evidence?

You asked for *how* this was possible. I told you. You asked for evidence. I pointed to the fossils.

CG Didymus · May 6, 2017

InvestigateTruth said:
"Noah's flood is but the measure of the tears I have shed, and ..." Bahaullah

It is obvious, Bahaullah is alluding that, Noah's flood was a prophecy that is fulfilled by appearance of Bahaullah, and the number of difficult years He had.

"The “Crimson Ark” refers to the Cause of Bahá’u’lláh."

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Page 216

A little more explanation please. It sounds like Baha'u'llah is saying that Noah's flood was a symbolic prophecy about how many tears he would shed? And the Ark is his Crimson Ark? So Noah's Ark and the flood didn't happen, but they were written into the Bible as a prophecy about Baha'u'llah?

CG Didymus · May 6, 2017

shunyadragon said:
First, when you use the word 'objective,' by definition you are referring to what can be verified 'outside our mind' concerning our our physical existence as the basis of theories and hypothesis in Methodological Naturalism. In contrast 'subjective' would be of the mind only as in philosophy.

The truth of the Baha'i Faith is Revealed Truth in the principles and spiritual principles and laws such as the principle of the 'Harmony of science and religion,' The evolving knowledge of science based on Methodological Naturalism is acknowledged as the interpreter of the nature of our physical existence, and all writings in all the religions specifically concerning the nature of our physical existence, including the Baha'i Faith, must be understood in the light of science. An example of a Revealed Spiritual Law in the Baha'i would be the Prohibition of all forms of slavery, and the prohibition of all forms of prejudice

"The truth of the Baha'i Faith is The truth of the Baha'i Faith is Revealed Truth" So since it is revealed by a spokesman of God, is it absolute truth? And, do you consider the entire Bible as Revealed Truth also?

CG Didymus · May 6, 2017

omega2xx said:
I was looking at the chart your whale experts invented. There was no intermediates between hippo and pakicetus. None between Inodhyus and ambulocetus and nontebetween palicetus and kutchicetus. Also speciation will not cause a change of species.

No you don't You have an animal with legs in one picture and it become a animal with fins in the next and nothing in between.

Genetics does not rely on DNA, it relies on the gene pool of the parents and DNA will not link fossils together, it well separated them into distinct life forms.

How do you feel about how some Christians explain that because the Bible says "kinds" that one type of dog-like animal, like a wolf, was all that was needed on the Ark? I'm wondering, because that still requires an animal, like a wolf, to have the genes necessary to become something other than a wolf and give birth to a animals like a foxes or hyenas or coyotes etc.

CG Didymus · May 6, 2017

gnostic said:
Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian of the 1st century CE, who wrote "Against Apion", had identified the Israelites with the Hyksos.

Josephus' source to his claim come from 3rd century BCE Egyptian priest, Manetho, who wrote Aegyptiaca (Αἰγυπτιακων) during the reign of Ptolemy II, the 2nd ruler of the Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty.

Modern scholars and historians rejected Israelite-Hyksos link. Josephus made this Hyksos claim, not Manetho.

Josephus referred to the Hyksos as "Shepherd Kings", so his assumptions that Jacob and his children being "shepherds", he assumed also that the Israelites were these Hyksos, but his assumptions false. The Hyksos is a Greek name for the Egyptian
heqa khaseshet , meaning "rulers of the foreign countries"; it doesn't mean "shepherd kings".

But there are no evidences support such identification Of the Hyksos to the Israelites or Hebrews .

Also Josephus' claim conflict with the Exodus.

For instance, the Hyksos invaded Egypt and established a new dynasty (Dynasty 15, 1674 – 1535 BCE) with 4 kings. They were invaders and conquerors, not shepherds and not slaves as depicted in the Exodus.

The Hyksos were the ones who introduced light war-chariots to the Egyptians.

When Ahmose I (reign 1549 – 1529 BCE and founder of the 18th dynasty) from Thebes with his army drove out the Hyksos, it was war. The Thebans (of the 17th dynasty) copied the Hyksos chariots. Ahmose was a prince, brother to the last 17th dynasty king, Kamose.

But in the Exodus, it wasn't war. It was God and Moses liberating the Israelites from slaver - through the plagues and angel of death.

The origin of the Hyksos is a mystery, and there have been a number of hypotheses of who these people, and where they come from. The general assumptions are, they were Semitic-speaking people, the Canaanites being one of the possible candidates.

The other possibility is that the Hyksos were Hurrian-speaking people from northern Syria. The Hurrians were people who drove chariots in wars, like their contemporary neighbors - Hittites and Assyrians. The Canaanites weren't noted for been charioteers.

Josephus is only reliable historian when he is writing history that were less than 300 years from his own time. When he attempted to mix the scriptures with other historical sources, he is not at all reliable because his biases showed.

Thanks, man. Your knowledge is appreciated.

InvestigateTruth · May 6, 2017

CG Didymus said:
A little more explanation please. It sounds like Baha'u'llah is saying that Noah's flood was a symbolic prophecy about how many tears he would shed? And the Ark is his Crimson Ark? So Noah's Ark and the flood didn't happen, but they were written into the Bible as a prophecy about Baha'u'llah?

"....The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Baha'i News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1716)

It is obvious that Bahaullah did not cry or shed tears literally. His statements are symbolic.

Bahaullahs states in many places, the words of Prophets can have many meaning:

Thus it is recorded: “Every knowledge hath seventy meanings, of which one only is known amongst the people. And when the Qá’im shall arise, He shall reveal unto men all that which remaineth.” He also saith: “We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these meanings we can explain.” Bahaullah

You can make your own conclusions.

shunyadragon · May 6, 2017

CG Didymus said:
"The truth of the Baha'i Faith is The truth of the Baha'i Faith is Revealed Truth" So since it is revealed by a spokesman of God, is it absolute truth?

Not from the fallible human perspective. The Revealed Word of God is always subject to filter of fallible human interpretation. All the Revelations are progressive relevant to the maturity of humanity since humans were first human. Humans are prown to corrupt religion over time, and mold God in their own cultural image.

There is absolute truth in the Revelation of the Baha'i Faith, for example there is only One God, an one source for all Creation. The spiritual laws and principles are universal for humanity for this age.

And, do you consider the entire Bible as Revealed Truth also?

No, there is no known author for most of the Bible and the books of the Bible are for the most part edited, redacted, and compiled from different sources. There is Revealed truth in the Bible.

omega2xx · May 7, 2017

Polymath257 said:
Wrong. The *definition* of a biological species is an interbreeding population. When the population splits and no longer interbreeds, you have two populations that can adapt independently.

The population did not split. Not only did the salamanders remain salamanders, they remained the same "kind" of salamander. It is well known that too much interbreeding can result in sterility of the offspring.

Again, wrong. We see former land animals becoming sea creatures all around us: seals, walruses, hippos, etc. Now, it is *possible* their progression to the sea will be interrupted, but they are all mammals becoming more adapted to the sea and thereby sea creatures.

You need an education on animals. Hippos are not sea creatures, they have no gills, fins or a blowhole.. and the laws of genetics will not allow them to get those things Seals, walruses, etc., are not land animals. While they can come on to land, they cant' survive on land.

Going into the sea to find food makes it more likely that any adaptation to the sea will be enhanced and preserved. Again, the changes don't happen in one generation, or even one hundred.

You also need an education in basic genetics. If the parents don't have a gene for fins, they will never have a kid with fins.

And again, a blowhole is just a nostril at the top of the head.

That may be but there is no genetic way a land animal with out one can get one. There is no reason for any animal to get something they don't need.

It can be *used* that way because species separate, stop interbreeding, and thereby develop separately, acquiring different mutations and characteristics that we can look for in the DNA.

You also need an education on mutations. They can alter a characteristic the offspring was going to receive, skin color for example, but they can't be a mechanism for a change of species. A change of skin color. will not result in a change of species.

omega2xx · May 7, 2017

Polymath257 said:
Yes. it was a cladogram. Hippos and other artiodactyls split off from those that became whales. if you don't understand the term 'artiodactyl', it is a good chance for you to learn a new word.

From wikipedia:

"A cladogram (from Greek clados "branch" and gramma "character") is a diagram used in cladistics to show relations among organisms. A cladogram is not, however, an evolutionary tree because it does not show how ancestors are related to descendants, nor does it show how much they have changed; many evolutionary trees can be inferred from a single cladogram.[1][2][3][4][5] A cladogram uses lines that branch off in different directions ending at a clade, a groups of organisms with a last common ancestor."

Notice that a cladogram is NOT an evolutionary tree, but carries the same information. What you saw was a cladogram.

"The even-toed ungulates (Artiodactyla, from Greek ἄρτιος (ártios), meaning 'even', and δάκτυλος (dáktylos), meaning 'finger/toe') are ungulates (hoofed animals) whose weight is borne equally by the third and fourth toes. By contrast, odd-toed ungulates, such as horses, bear their weight primarily on their third toe. The aquatic cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) evolved from within even-toed ungulates, and therefore modern taxonomic classification sometimes combines Artiodactyla and Cetacea into Cetartiodactyla."

So, for example, hippos are artiodactyls.

And, in spite of your biases, genetics not only allows the change in species, it practically requires it when the environment changes significantly over enough time.

You asked for *how* this was possible. I told you. You asked for evidence. I pointed to the fossils.

You have not provided any scientific evidence. You have only parroted the usual evo talking point. The fossils are not intermediate, especially from hippo, which don't exist, and from to pakitecus to kutchicetus, which also don't exist.

You have not explained how a small dog-like animal can evolve from a bi,fat hippo. You have not explained what would cause a land animal surviving very will on land to enter an environment that would at least st first, be more hostile to it s survival. That actually refutes "natural selection." You have not explained how it is genetically possible for a leg to become a fin and for a nose to become a blowhole.

Whale evolution is one one evolution's most absurd theories, but it is necessary or evolution is exposed for the fraud it is. To try and make it work, they are willing to ignore proven science and because you want it to be true, you accept it by faith alone.

omega2xx · May 7, 2017

CG Didymus said:
How do you feel about how some Christians explain that because the Bible says "kinds" that one type of dog-like animal, like a wolf, was all that was needed on the Ark? I'm wondering, because that still requires an animal, like a wolf, to have the genes necessary to become something other than a wolf and give birth to a animals like a foxes or hyenas or coyotes etc.

IMO there was 2 dogs, 2 wolves, 2 foxes etc. on the ark. Especially if these "kinds" cant breed and produce off springs.

MJFlores · May 7, 2017

adrian009 said:
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.

For me I will take the Bible at its face value.
If God made the universe and everything in it - in 6 days
It is 6 days
As to Noah's Ark - it is made of wood and docked in the mountains of Ararat - by the 16th century it would have been dust by then.

The thing is the prophecies in the Bible are things that could be verified in historical records which makes it credible, relevant, verifiable and true - beyond doubt.

People did have a popular belief that the earth was flat and this belief persisted even in the 17th century (classical period). Only when Ferdinand Magellan's ship returned to Spain did a few people accepted that the earth was round.

The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of the Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period, the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period, India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD), and China until the 17th century.
Flat Earth - Wikipedia

Isaiah 40:22 [8th century BCE] KJV

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

The Bible already described that the earth is round even before man circumnavigated the earth and while people were believing that the earth was flat.

shunyadragon · May 7, 2017

omega2xx said:
IMO there was 2 dogs, 2 wolves, 2 foxes etc. on the ark. Especially if these "kinds" cant breed and produce off springs.

Your argument is a blue smoke and mirrors dog and pony show.

shunyadragon · May 7, 2017

MJFlores said:
For me I will take the Bible at its face value.

At face value the Bible is not a credible historical record.

If God made the universe and everything in it - in 6 days, It is 6 days.

The fideist approach to scripture does not carry much credibility. It is sort of a last resort siege mentality, when there is no objective evidence to support it.

As to Noah's Ark - it is made of wood and docked in the mountains of Ararat - by the 16th century it would have been dust by then.

It is tough when by the evidence the flood nor Noah's Ark never existed.

The thing is the prophecies in the Bible are things that could be verified in historical records which makes it credible, relevant, verifiable and true - beyond doubt.

It remains that throughout history the prophecies of the Bible have been interpreted in many different ways, and contradictory. There is no evidence that any one interpretation of the prophecies are more credible, relevant, verifiable and most definitely not true - beyond doubt.

Polymath257 · May 7, 2017

omega2xx said:
You have not provided any scientific evidence. You have only parroted the usual evo talking point. The fossils are not intermediate, especially from hippo, which don't exist, and from to pakitecus to kutchicetus, which also don't exist.

Ambulocetus is intermediate between pakicetus and kutchicetus.

And you are correct, whales did not develop from hippos. But they do share a common ancestor in the Miocene.

You have not explained how a small dog-like animal can evolve from a bi,fat hippo. You have not explained what would cause a land animal surviving very will on land to enter an environment that would at least st first, be more hostile to it s survival. That actually refutes "natural selection." You have not explained how it is genetically possible for a leg to become a fin and for a nose to become a blowhole.

Yes, actually, I have. I have also pointed to the fossils for those steps. You have ignored them of claimed they are not evidence. But, in fact, those fossils *are* evidence and your misunderstandings of genetics don't imply that evolution is impossible.

In fact, given changing environments and mutations with natural selection, changing species is guaranteed. Many simulations show this mathematically.

Whale evolution is one one evolution's most absurd theories, but it is necessary or evolution is exposed for the fraud it is. To try and make it work, they are willing to ignore proven science and because you want it to be true, you accept it by faith alone.

Evolution *is* proven science. it is fully compatible with genetics (look up modern synthesis) and the fossil record.

shunyadragon · May 7, 2017

Polymath257 said:
Ambulocetus is intermediate between pakicetus and kutchicetus.

And you are correct, whales did not develop from hippos. But they do share a common ancestor in the Miocene.

Yes, actually, I have. I have also pointed to the fossils for those steps. You have ignored them of claimed they are not evidence. But, in fact, those fossils *are* evidence and your misunderstandings of genetics don't imply that evolution is impossible.

In fact, given changing environments and mutations with natural selection, changing species is guaranteed. Many simulations show this mathematically.

Evolution *is* proven science. it is fully compatible with genetics (look up modern synthesis) and the fossil record.

I prefer . . .

Evolution *is* [falsified] science based on consistent predictable hypothesis. it is fully compatible with genetics (look up modern synthesis) and the fossil record.

For example; Many if not most fossils of intermediate species in evolution discovered in the past ~50+ years were predicted from prior discovered fossils.

omega2xx · May 7, 2017

shunyadragon said:
Your argument is a blue smoke and mirrors dog and pony show.

How do you know that>

BTW, I tried to answer a post from you earlier ,but the wrong msg kept coming up for some reason. I will try to answer it later today, but I wanted you to know I was not ignoring your msg.

omega2xx · May 7, 2017

Polymath257 said:
Ambulocetus is intermediate between pakicetus and kutchicetus.

It is not. pakicetgus lived on land, had a nose and leges. Kutchicetus lived in the water and had fins and a blowhole. Are you suggeting this happened overnight?

And you are correct, whales did not develop from hippos. But they do share a common ancestor in the Miocene.

Talk is cheap, show the evidence. The chart showed pakicetus evolved from hippos. That is absurd, and hey did not offer ii=any link connectding them.

Yes, actually, I have. I have also pointed to the fossils for those steps. You have ignored them of claimed they are not evidence. But, in fact, those fossils *are* evidence and your misunderstandings of genetics don't imply that evolution is impossible.

Only if they are intermediates, and they are not.

In fact, given changing environments and mutations with natural selection, changing species is guaranteed.

The environment will not change the laws of genetics and mutations are not a mechanism for a change of species.

Many simulations show this mathematically.

Don't tell me, show me.

Evolution *is* proven science. it is fully compatible with genetics

No true. If you understood genetics, you would KNOW genetics refutes evolution.

(look up modern synthesis) and the fossil record.

Look up what determines the characteristics of the offspring.

CG Didymus · May 7, 2017

gnostic said:
Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian of the 1st century CE, who wrote "Against Apion", had identified the Israelites with the Hyksos.

Josephus' source to his claim come from 3rd century BCE Egyptian priest, Manetho, who wrote Aegyptiaca (Αἰγυπτιακων) during the reign of Ptolemy II, the 2nd ruler of the Macedonian Ptolemaic dynasty.

Modern scholars and historians rejected Israelite-Hyksos link. Josephus made this Hyksos claim, not Manetho.

Josephus referred to the Hyksos as "Shepherd Kings", so his assumptions that Jacob and his children being "shepherds", he assumed also that the Israelites were these Hyksos, but his assumptions false. The Hyksos is a Greek name for the Egyptian
heqa khaseshet , meaning "rulers of the foreign countries"; it doesn't mean "shepherd kings".

But there are no evidences support such identification Of the Hyksos to the Israelites or Hebrews .

Also Josephus' claim conflict with the Exodus.

For instance, the Hyksos invaded Egypt and established a new dynasty (Dynasty 15, 1674 – 1535 BCE) with 4 kings. They were invaders and conquerors, not shepherds and not slaves as depicted in the Exodus.

The Hyksos were the ones who introduced light war-chariots to the Egyptians.

When Ahmose I (reign 1549 – 1529 BCE and founder of the 18th dynasty) from Thebes with his army drove out the Hyksos, it was war. The Thebans (of the 17th dynasty) copied the Hyksos chariots. Ahmose was a prince, brother to the last 17th dynasty king, Kamose.

But in the Exodus, it wasn't war. It was God and Moses liberating the Israelites from slaver - through the plagues and angel of death.

The origin of the Hyksos is a mystery, and there have been a number of hypotheses of who these people, and where they come from. The general assumptions are, they were Semitic-speaking people, the Canaanites being one of the possible candidates.

The other possibility is that the Hyksos were Hurrian-speaking people from northern Syria. The Hurrians were people who drove chariots in wars, like their contemporary neighbors - Hittites and Assyrians. The Canaanites weren't noted for been charioteers.

Josephus is only reliable historian when he is writing history that were less than 300 years from his own time. When he attempted to mix the scriptures with other historical sources, he is not at all reliable because his biases showed.

Of course literalist Christians need it to be true. Baha'is say it true, but is symbolic. If it was made up mythical stories, to me both Christians and Bahai's are wrong. Obviously for Christians, because it never happened. But, it's the same for Baha'is. The symbolism of a fictional story proves their legitimacy? How?

The Bible stories are presented as historical fact. For Baha'is, they say that if something doesn't make sense literal that it has to be symbolic. Then, that is saying those things aren't historical fact. But where draw the line? The whole Bible is filled with stories that don't make sense literally... Jonah and the big fish, parting of the sea, manna from heaven, Samson and his hair, the Tower of Babel, and many others along with the Flood and Creation. Baha'is even try to explain with their symbolism the age of the people in Genesis.

Anyway, the easiest explanation for me is that it's all as myth. It was made up by the people to give meaning and an understanding for their culture and society. It gave them an explanation of who they are and who their God is. But, since all people had myths about their origin and purpose, which one is right? If any? Why this one? Why don't the Baha'is try and find the symbolism proving their religion in Greek mythology?

Of course it is because the Bible is the foundation of God's truth to not only the Jews, but to the Christians, the Muslims, and now the Baha'is. Those other religions don't have to tie in non-Abrahamic religions, though. The Baha'is do... and, of course, with a ton of symbolism.

CG Didymus · May 7, 2017

InvestigateTruth said:
"....The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Baha'i News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1716)

It is obvious that Bahaullah did not cry or shed tears literally. His statements are symbolic.

Bahaullahs states in many places, the words of Prophets can have many meaning:

Thus it is recorded: “Every knowledge hath seventy meanings, of which one only is known amongst the people. And when the Qá’im shall arise, He shall reveal unto men all that which remaineth.” He also saith: “We speak one word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these meanings we can explain.” Bahaullah

You can make your own conclusions.

I'm still trying to figure out the difference between a story that is presented as being historical and being symbolic versus a story that is presented as real events... but only meant to teach spiritual lessons and to, I would have to say, scare people into believing a set of rules. So we have the Law. How do we get people to obey those laws? We tell them that these laws are from God and must be obeyed.

The people ask, "So who is God?" The myth begins. "In the beginning...." The story finally to them, and the story teller says, "See, God punishes those that disobey his commands. So you better do it."

The one of many meaning you give it, you take away the literal historical meaning and makes it a symbolic message for those thousands of years later. So for all those years people were either living and believing those stories as real events. Or, they were questioning and doubting them and... quitting on God, because they couldn't accept the stories as real.

Jesus comes along adds more stories that don't make sense scientifically, so are they also symbolic? Walking on water, water into wine, healing the blind etc? Yes, you have made some of those symbolic also. But, for hundreds of years, Christians have been teaching and preaching that those events were real and prove that Jesus is from God. And, what's important to this thread, he didn't say anything to question the Creation story or the Flood. For Jesus, it seems like he believed them to be true events in history. Crazy? Yes, but he did nothing to get his followers from not believing in Genesis as historical.

The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

Think & Care

Think & Care

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

shunyadragon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

shunyadragon

shunyadragon

Think & Care

shunyadragon

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member