Are the religious cling ons?

[fallingblood]

Gensis' creation stories don't contradict each other, each explains a difference facet, where one has more detail as to how god created the universe and the other explains why humanity suffers. Each story is trying to explain physical phenomena

They do contradict each other. I have to assume now that you simply haven't read the two accounts for some time.

If we look at the beginning of each creation story (Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4), we see a difference right away. In the first account, the Earth was formless and void. In the second account, it is simply barren (as in, it has form and isn't void).

The first story talks about how water covered the Earth (why it was formless and void), and the first thing God did was make light. The second story has a barren world (as in water did not cover it), where two streams irrigate the world. The first thing God does is create man. Obviously this is a very different picture.

In the first story, we get a picture of how God created (or more like separate) the light, the water, etc. The second story lumps that all together in the idea that God created the heavens and Earth (both actually begin that way).

The first story has God create the animals in the water and sky on the fifth day, and then the animals on the land on the sixth day. This is all before humans are created. Yet, for the second story, God created humans, had vegetation (trees, plants, etc) grow, and then created animals all together (not separately like in the first story).

The first story has God creating humans (both male and female) as the last thing God does. In the second story, the first thing God does is create man. And then much later, creates woman. These two stories are very different on the creation of humans.

The two stories do not complement each other. They are very different stories, they contradict each other, and portray very different "truths."

Finally, the second creation story does not tell us why people suffer. The second creation story goes up to chapter 3. Chapter 3 then begins a different narrative. There is a clear break between the creation narrative in chapter 2, and the Garden of Eden narrative (or the fall narrative) in chapter 3. It is the Garden of Eden narrative, (or the fall narrative) that tries to give some explanation of why we suffer. However, this is not the only explanation, and it isn't necessary that one would take such a story literally. Especially since there were much more in depth answers to the question as to why one suffered. Job is a perfect example of this, as well as various other Wisdom literature.

To sum up, yes, the two creation stories are very very different. To suggest otherwise only implies you're not looking at the actual narratives.

Ah...no the fact that there are multiple stories has to do with what is each story is trying to convey but that they should not be interpreted as actual events is false. The best example are the flood stories where the evidence is clear; a real phenomena happened and the ancients explained it with their religion...

Your explanation of what they were trying to convey simply failed as it actually ignored the stories and what they said.

Yes, the fact that there are two stories, that contradict each other (which I clearly showed above), but were accepted as "true," shows beyond a doubt that the ancients did not take the creation stories as literal. They couldn't take the stories literally and accept both. The only way one could take both stories literally is if they ignored what the stories actually said (as you have actually done). But there is no evidence the ancients actually did that. Especially when the person (or people) who edited Genesis specially took these creation stories, without changing them to add up, and placed them in their work that we call Genesis. That is why later generations felt free to change them. All one has to do is look at later Jewish works such a Jubilees or Enoch.

As for the flood story, they actually are a great example of what I'm talking about. Again, in Genesis, we have two flood accounts that are different. If we look at later commentaries on this story, we also see people changing them as they will. Why? Because they weren't seen as being literal. That is why the Hebrews had no problem changing the Epic of Gilgamesh to fit their own needs (and in fact, they did it at least in two different ways). Not to mention that the Sumerians and there later predecessors also had no problem changing the story. Why? Because they weren't literal.

The flood story did have a foundation in reality. But the stories surrounding it, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh were never meant to be taken literal. It was written as an Epic. It fits in that genre. That is why some background in ancient genres is very helpful here.

The support for those assumptions are not there. It makes no sense to say; the religious believed their writings were fairy tales and shouldn't be taken literally when they perform rituals based on their beliefs and used the stories to explain real phenomena.

Did you even read the book you're commenting on here? Because it certainly doesn't seem like it.

Also your argument falls short when religions perform exorcisms, plea to the gods to bring good fortune like rain or a good yield in crops, or even pass punishments with curses. None of those rituals make ANY sense if the ancient believe their religious texts where myths.

And again if you are religious where do you draw the line? If the stories are myths then so could the very idea of god be myth.

I never said that all of their religious texts where myths. Never did I imply such. However, not all of their texts were literal. After all, what we have is a collection of books, which span over a variety of different genres, and centuries. To try to make over arching statements about "their" religious texts simply is ridiculous, and I never did such. You are making those statements, and then implying that I hold them, which I definitely do not.

 

[Leonardo]

They do contradict each other. I have to assume now that you simply haven't read the two accounts for some time.

If we look at the beginning of each creation story (Gen 1:1 and Gen 2:4), we see a difference right away. In the first account, the Earth was formless and void. In the second account, it is simply barren (as in, it has form and isn't void).

The first story talks about how water covered the Earth (why it was formless and void), and the first thing God did was make light. The second story has a barren world (as in water did not cover it), where two streams irrigate the world. The first thing God does is create man. Obviously this is a very different picture.

In the first story, we get a picture of how God created (or more like separate) the light, the water, etc. The second story lumps that all together in the idea that God created the heavens and Earth (both actually begin that way).

The first story has God create the animals in the water and sky on the fifth day, and then the animals on the land on the sixth day. This is all before humans are created. Yet, for the second story, God created humans, had vegetation (trees, plants, etc) grow, and then created animals all together (not separately like in the first story).

The first story has God creating humans (both male and female) as the last thing God does. In the second story, the first thing God does is create man. And then much later, creates woman. These two stories are very different on the creation of humans.

The two stories do not complement each other. They are very different stories, they contradict each other, and portray very different "truths."

Finally, the second creation story does not tell us why people suffer. The second creation story goes up to chapter 3. Chapter 3 then begins a different narrative. There is a clear break between the creation narrative in chapter 2, and the Garden of Eden narrative (or the fall narrative) in chapter 3. It is the Garden of Eden narrative, (or the fall narrative) that tries to give some explanation of why we suffer. However, this is not the only explanation, and it isn't necessary that one would take such a story literally. Especially since there were much more in depth answers to the question as to why one suffered. Job is a perfect example of this, as well as various other Wisdom literature.

To sum up, yes, the two creation stories are very very different. To suggest otherwise only implies you're not looking at the actual narratives.
Your explanation of what they were trying to convey simply failed as it actually ignored the stories and what they said.

Yes, the fact that there are two stories, that contradict each other (which I clearly showed above), but were accepted as "true," shows beyond a doubt that the ancients did not take the creation stories as literal. They couldn't take the stories literally and accept both. The only way one could take both stories literally is if they ignored what the stories actually said (as you have actually done). But there is no evidence the ancients actually did that. Especially when the person (or people) who edited Genesis specially took these creation stories, without changing them to add up, and placed them in their work that we call Genesis. That is why later generations felt free to change them. All one has to do is look at later Jewish works such a Jubilees or Enoch.

As for the flood story, they actually are a great example of what I'm talking about. Again, in Genesis, we have two flood accounts that are different. If we look at later commentaries on this story, we also see people changing them as they will. Why? Because they weren't seen as being literal. That is why the Hebrews had no problem changing the Epic of Gilgamesh to fit their own needs (and in fact, they did it at least in two different ways). Not to mention that the Sumerians and there later predecessors also had no problem changing the story. Why? Because they weren't literal.

The flood story did have a foundation in reality. But the stories surrounding it, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh were never meant to be taken literal. It was written as an Epic. It fits in that genre. That is why some background in ancient genres is very helpful here.
Did you even read the book you're commenting on here? Because it certainly doesn't seem like it.
I never said that all of their religious texts where myths. Never did I imply such. However, not all of their texts were literal. After all, what we have is a collection of books, which span over a variety of different genres, and centuries. To try to make over arching statements about "their" religious texts simply is ridiculous, and I never did such. You are making those statements, and then implying that I hold them, which I definitely do not.

Your impressions between the two creation stories are really trying to impose a conflict when there is none. There are differences but not to the point where one conflicts with the other.

Again the argument that those stories are to be read as fairy tales is baseless. Those stories were the foundation to explain the ancients' reality and nothing you've stated thus far proves otherwise...

 

[fallingblood]

Your impressions between the two creation stories are really trying to impose a conflict when there is none. There are differences but not to the point where one conflicts with the other.

Again the argument that those stories are to be read as fairy tales is baseless. Those stories were the foundation to explain the ancients' reality and nothing you've stated thus far proves otherwise...

Seriously? I pointed out the various conflicts between the two stories. You can't have one story saying man (separate from women) were the first thing created, and on the other hand, say that man and woman (created at the same time) were the last thing to be created, and say there is no conflict. To do so would mean one has to close their eyes, ignore what the stories say, and then make something up. That appears to be what you are doing here.

As for your second paragraph, it is baseless. Since you haven't, or can't, provide a rebuttal against what I said (beyond simply ignoring it), your argument fails. The fact that there are two conflicting creation accounts, both held to be true, shows beyond a doubt that they were not taken literally.

Now, if you want to continue to just do a runaround, and ignore what Genesis actually states, there is no point in continuing an actual discussion with you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've implied nothing of the sort. I haven't even been talking about my form of Christianity at all. I haven't gone into my interpretation of the creation myths, or anything like that. I have simply stated what has long been accepted by many, that the creation myths were written as myths. The genre of history did not exist at that time. The genre of science literature did not exist. But we do have myths and epics, neither one meant to be taken literally, that these stories fit into very well, as in genre wise.

You keep on saying things about them no being meant to be taken literally. Are you saying that Christians who do take these stories literally are wrong to do so?

Ussher was hardly the voice of the religion though.

His views became very popular, and he wasn't the only one with similar ideas. He wasn't universally accepted (though nothing in Christianity is universally accepted, IMO), but he was definitely mainstream.

Yes, there were some who took the creation account to be literal. However, that isn't Biblical literalism. That was simply a bad explanation for something people didn't really have any other easy explanations for.

Biblical literalism didn't arise until the late 1800's. That is when people made a conscious effort to believe that the Bible was 100% literal. As in, they were shown that there was another possibility (as in there were great strides in Biblical studies), and they choose to reject those. Biblical criticism was a huge stride, and it became very popular.

I'm not sure if you're moving the goalposts or if we're just dancing around the issue. What I'm saying is that throughout Christianity, it's been eminently mainstream that the Genesis account was interpreted as a description of real events. Heck - it's still a point of doctrine in the Catholic Church that all of humanity descended from one original pair of humans. The doctrine of Original Sin - one of the most important in the Church - is utterly dependent on Adam and Eve being literal people in some way.

As a side note, even during the time of Ussher, the story of creation was not taken 100% literal. There was debate on various details, and because of that, we see numerous chronological timelines. And Ussher's dating also was dependent on other "scientific" ideas at that time.

But all wrapped around the assumption that the Creation was a literal event. The debate was generally about how it happened, not whether it happened.

Not all creationists are Biblical literalists though. Neither do they hold a divine authorship of the scriptures. Many Lutherans believe in creationism, even though they are taught that the Bible is not 100% literal, and tend to see the Bible as inspired (while acknowledging that it was written by humans, and is flawed).

One can set aside creationism and have these other fundamental concepts. People have done so throughout history. The two are not inseparable.

I don't think it's as easy as you suggest. The point I was getting at is whatever the reason people are Creationists, it's generally not because they arbitrarily decide to be one. It's interrelated with their other beliefs - they're generally led to Creationism as a consequence of other fundamental beliefs that touch all sorts of aspects of their faith, so removing Creationism from the equation would mean removing all those fundamental beliefs and completely restructuring what they believe in all sorts of ways. It's not like you can pull Creationism out of the pile all by itself and have everything else stand up exactly the way it was before.

 

[Leonardo]

Seriously? I pointed out the various conflicts between the two stories. You can't have one story saying man (separate from women) were the first thing created, and on the other hand, say that man and woman (created at the same time) were the last thing to be created, and say there is no conflict. To do so would mean one has to close their eyes, ignore what the stories say, and then make something up. That appears to be what you are doing here.

As for your second paragraph, it is baseless. Since you haven't, or can't, provide a rebuttal against what I said (beyond simply ignoring it), your argument fails. The fact that there are two conflicting creation accounts, both held to be true, shows beyond a doubt that they were not taken literally.

Now, if you want to continue to just do a runaround, and ignore what Genesis actually states, there is no point in continuing an actual discussion with you.

You can view the first creation story as being more detailed account of god creating a universe, while the second skips all the details about creating a universe and focuses much more detail on how man was created. It is clear that one story is about how the earth, the moon, stars and the sun came about while the second is how man was created, each story is focusing on a specialty.

That you argue that the two stories are in conflict is suspicious, because its obvious that they are not...

 

[fallingblood]

You keep on saying things about them no being meant to be taken literally. Are you saying that Christians who do take these stories literally are wrong to do so?

I'm saying anyone who takes these stories to be literal are wrong to do so. That is not saying the my version of Christianity is better though. It simply stating what scholars and theologians have known for a long time. Using literary criticism, it becomes very obvious that these creation myths are in fact written as myths. That they were not meant to be literal.

His views became very popular, and he wasn't the only one with similar ideas. He wasn't universally accepted (though nothing in Christianity is universally accepted, IMO), but he was definitely mainstream.


I'm not sure if you're moving the goalposts or if we're just dancing around the issue. What I'm saying is that throughout Christianity, it's been eminently mainstream that the Genesis account was interpreted as a description of real events. Heck - it's still a point of doctrine in the Catholic Church that all of humanity descended from one original pair of humans. The doctrine of Original Sin - one of the most important in the Church - is utterly dependent on Adam and Eve being literal people in some way.


But all wrapped around the assumption that the Creation was a literal event. The debate was generally about how it happened, not whether it happened.

In the end though, none of this stuff actually matters. Yes, at a point in time, more and more people began seeing the creation myths as literal. That has no bearing on what the original authors and audience would have seen them as. And we can be sure what they were intended as through literary criticism. They look, sound, and act like a myth. They are therefore a myth.

Also, the official Catholic position is not that the creation stories are literal events. In fact, it's quite the opposite. They don't need Adam and Eve. Original sin can exist without Adam and Eve. And in fact, Catholic scholars have other ways in which original sin exists without Adam and Eve.

I don't think it's as easy as you suggest. The point I was getting at is whatever the reason people are Creationists, it's generally not because they arbitrarily decide to be one. It's interrelated with their other beliefs - they're generally led to Creationism as a consequence of other fundamental beliefs that touch all sorts of aspects of their faith, so removing Creationism from the equation would mean removing all those fundamental beliefs and completely restructuring what they believe in all sorts of ways. It's not like you can pull Creationism out of the pile all by itself and have everything else stand up exactly the way it was before.

People are creationists because that is what they are taught. School systems have failed greatly in teaching evolution, as well as critical thinking. However, once when gets to college, and actually take a credible biology class, there is a tendency to reject creationism and accept evolution. It is all about actually teaching it in a way that people can understand.

Most people who are creationists are so because they haven't learned otherwise, and really, it doesn't matter. It is something that is never brought up, and something they don't think about. Because really, it isn't important.

Creationism is a very small part of religion. That is why both the Lutheran and Catholic church have been able to continually move to great acceptance of it, and in fact, teach it in their schools. More so, they continually update their theological ideas based on new scientific research as well. Primarily because creationism is not a major factor.

 

[fallingblood]

You can view the first creation story as being more detailed account of god creating a universe, while the second skips all the details about creating a universe and focuses much more detail on how man was created. It is clear that one story is about how the earth, the moon, stars and the sun came about while the second is how man was created, each story is focusing on a specialty.

That you argue that the two stories are in conflict is suspicious, because its obvious that they are not...

I have shown where the two stories directly contradict each other, and are in conflict.

The first story does not recount the creation of the universe. We don't see planets being created or anything like that. We see only things that effect Earth. The same is with the second story. And the two stories disagree about how humans came about.

It's getting to the point that I have to assume you aren't even reading my arguments (because I can't see how you did and still say there is no conflict, as there clearly is, as I pointed out) but instead just repeating the same tired argument.

 

[Leonardo]

I have shown where the two stories directly contradict each other, and are in conflict.

The first story does not recount the creation of the universe. We don't see planets being created or anything like that. We see only things that effect Earth. The same is with the second story. And the two stories disagree about how humans came about.

It's getting to the point that I have to assume you aren't even reading my arguments (because I can't see how you did and still say there is no conflict, as there clearly is, as I pointed out) but instead just repeating the same tired argument.

You're not getting it...The stories do not conflict...

 

[outhouse]

You're not getting it...The stories do not conflict...

they do.

this shows you have little knowledge on the subject


you would be wise listening to fallingblod



if you knew anything at all on the subject youwould understand this is two different Israelites north and south that each had their own versions. At a point in time these a early version and a later version were combined to read as one legend. Of course these themselves were collections that gathered and were redacted over centuries from previous religions, mostly Mesopotamian in origin.

its complicated as this scripture evolved over hundreds of years as the cultures changed

 

[Leonardo]

they do.

No they do not and I've explained why in previous posts. That you would like them to be conflicting to substantiate that the Hebrews viewed them as myths is laughable!

 

[outhouse]

No they do not and I've explained why in previous posts. That you would like them to be conflicting to substantiate that the Hebrews viewed them as myths is laughable!

you do not understand the history of Israleites and you dont understand why the legends were collected, or why they were compiled and why they were edited and when.


you have explained wrong based on ignorance of history