Bible creation was cosmic, galactic, planetary or local?

[kylixguru]

I'm sparking up a new thread from this comment in another thread:

This is a common problem with the interpretation which even drives the "Documentary Hypothesis". The issue is that no plants had grown up yet in "The land" where the garden was planted. The issue is that the word "land" means not the entire Earth but the garden of Eden. It would be silly to expect man to till all the "plants" of the "Entire earth". It's clearly referring to the specific location of the garden itself after the rest of creation was formed. Including other "men" preceding Adam of whom Cain built a city for and acquired a wife from. It is these translation and interpretation issues that entire (bogus) scholarly claims about the "P" and "E" source are drawn from. It's important to remember that there is no word for "Planet Earth", it is only ever "Land" when it says Eretz. When it says "The land" and "land", that may be an indicator due to the articulation whether its referring to land itself or a specific land.

The context you drew attention to, that Cain built a city and got wives from elsewhere, suggests that there is something underlying the creation narrative that did not omit the possibility that people were in existence contemporary to and even prior to Adam.

If this is true, this rules out the possibility that the creation narrative pertains to a cosmic, a galactic or even a planetary scope. I would like to purport that the creation narrative pertains to a specific local area and a specific tribe of people only, as you seem to be alluding to above.

I imagine people have tried to explore this line of reasoning before so I would like to hear about those attempts, how far you got and why you reached the conclusion you did. I'll share some of my discoveries in pursuit of exploring this line of reasoning for your consideration and especially for your substantive critique.

What if the flecks of dust Adam's body was made from were actually people formerly in an uninspired state? Adam's body then would have been formed by flecks of dust (people) having the "breath of life" blown into their nostrils. Therefore, Adam was the group of people who attained to a state of mind we would call enlightenment, spiritual resurrection, spiritual birth, being born again, etc. acting in union as a distinct body.

If that is the case then it is possible that the other aspects of the creation narrative could also apply to how people are organized into various spiritual bodies. Thus, it is a narrative that uses symbols to say how one tribal group would undergo a period of time as a full cycle plays out, that also appears to be cyclic in nature that will have a new beginning out of the former cycle's ending.

So, is there some indication in the text itself that provides any clues that the creation account actually pertains to people? The answer seems to me to be: Yes.

What do you make of the passage in Genesis 2:4 that right after the days of creation are described with all of their elements it says: "These are the generations..."?

Doesn't it seem plausible that we are not talking about a cosmic, galactic or even planetary thing if it says all of that stuff actually pertains to generations, which are people?

 

[fallingblood]

I think taking the creation accounts (there are two) literal, it takes away from what the stories are actually trying to convey. They are myth, and that is not to say that they are false (such a definition of myth simply is illogical and I think lazy). I think that creation myths, like myths in general, at the basis, do portray a truth or truths.

When the creation stories do talk about creating, I think it is quite clear that they are referring to a cosmic creation. I would say that because creation stories in general reference a cosmic creation. I don't think the authors assumed they were writing history, because I think they were more intelligent than that. But it played a part in the truth they were trying to convey.

 

[kylixguru]

I'll go ahead and share my view in favor of the creation in the Bible being a local thing. Therefore, it is the creation of a specific local tribe who has their own specific plot of ground and the covenants associated with that land that will enable them to live in a peaceful and unmolested state as long as they keep those covenants.

I'm convinced if people took the Bible in this manner, it would alleviate global contentions considerably and unshackle useful minds and intelligence that can be put to more productive mental exercises than the fantasy most Abrahamic religious groups seem to be steeped in. This seems to be a critical insight missed somehow.

Reading the creation narrative in this manner appears to me to allow it to be taken 100% seriously because we can see clear evidence of how the creation account's 7 day periods itself aren't a historical document of what happened but rather that they are a master template or blueprint of prophecy of what _shall happen_ during that creation's 7,000 year duration on the "spiritual bodies" level of interpretation I used for Adam.

I say 7,000 year duration because it seems that all Jews, Christians, Muslims, Etc. acknowledge that we are about 6,000 years into the creation and that we are experiencing the "end times" prior to an imminent "Golden Age" Millennium, which would be the Holy Sabbath Day of the days of Creation.

This also seemed to be what Peter was trying to get across to the people of his day that were anxiously expecting the "end times" events to happen imminently. Peter was kind enough to let them know, in so many words, there was still plenty of time and much more needed to play out before the end times prophecies would come about.

He said:

2 Peter 3
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

What Peter seemed to be saying was: The "Day of Judgment" shall be a Lord's Day. This means that it would be a period of 1,000 years to mankind. He also seemed to be tapping into the knowledge that the creation itself would be a total of 7 millennial "Lord's Days" with the last Day being the "Judgment Day".

We also find an interesting phrase back in Genesis 2:4 giving evidence this is so.

Geneis 2
4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

What this is saying is that all of the generations of people were made (organized) during a period of a single day, which would correspond with a millennium.

The implication I take from this is that there is an entire millennial period of time to man when the LORD God performs His labour to organize all of the individual souls of men who lived into some kind of orderliness based upon all of the symbols made use of in the days of creation. This appears to help answer the question of how God shall judge everyone. It will take Him quite a bit of time to perform this labour.

Paul also confirms that we shall be organized again into whatever the symbols in the days of creation pertain to. He answers the question of: What flesh do we rise up with in our resurrection in the world to come? His answer in 1 Corinthians 15:35-42 was to simply rehearse all of the aspects of the days of creation.



This all simply appears to apply to the organization of people in a big family.

 

[kylixguru]

The process of reading the creation narrative as prophecy was brand new to me. But, by taking it this way, we can start to ask ourselves questions like this:

If the creation of the "greater light to rule the day" took place on Day 4, how do we relate that to people and figure out who that would actually represent in reality?

That most glorious and exalted person mentioned in the whole account is by far the most obvious item we can decipher. The answer to this one really came as a shocker to me because the first time I had this idea spark in my mind I really didn't know if it would have merit or not. Here’s how easy it was to do:

Since it is on Day 4, this means that this item was manifested during the creation's 4th millennium. This would put our time range in the proximity of 1000 AD to the meridian of time. Do you think it is at all a coincidence that Jesus was born in the meridian of time and that during his life he had a lot of tussles with the establishment when he declared of himself "I am the light and life of the world"?

That discovery definitely got my attention. Then, shortly thereafter I looked at Day 5. We have the creation of the creatures in the waters wherein dwells the "breath of life". This is obviously a reference to the "fishes". So, what do we find in the 5th millennium that could represent what the “fishes” are?

When Jesus called his chief apostles, they were fishermen! What did he call them to become? "Fishers of men". When Jesus appeared to them in his resurrected body of flesh and bone, he took "fish" into his body to prove to his disciples that he indeed was resurrected that his body did indeed have flesh and bone. (Luke 24:39-43) Do not the Christians call themselves “fishes” and the “body of Christ”?

So, by looking at the creation narrative this way, I can now say I have seen the resurrected body of Jesus, and so can you if you want to. The Christians themselves are the spiritually resurrected body of flesh and bone of Jesus that is composed of the broiled "fishes" that Peter and his fellow apostles gathered into their nets and cooked.

Paul confirms exactly what a body of flesh and bone is so that the resurrection of Jesus Christ to a body of flesh and bone is no longer a mystery to people. Ephesians 5:30 says: “For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” So, we learn a flesh and bone body is a group of individuals unified by a common spirit.

If we continue on, we should also see on Day 6 the coming about of "dry land". What is the difference between being under water and on dry land? This one puzzled me a bit until I found a reference in Revelation 17:5 that said "waters are the nations, kindreds and tongues of men". Put another way Gentiles means the “nations of men”.

So, this further defines that the Christians of Day 5 were actually under the dominion and governance of men. However, on Day 6 we see a trend towards people evolving out of the waters of man's rule to higher life forms when you get out from under the tyranny of man. We start to see the emergence of forms of governance that gave man freedom to live "above water".

A prime example of an environment where "dry land" (liberty) was manifested in order for higher forms of "life" to emerge was the united States of America. And, it is upon and within this context that you see the final emergence of the most evolved of the creatures of creation, Man. We have the coming forth of Adam and Eve on Day 6.

So, when people think that Adam is only in the beginning they would do well to consider also that when you are in repeating cycles that which is in the beginning is also at or very near the ending as well. What we learn here, if this blueprint idea has merit, is Adam actually comes to lay the foundation of the new cycle of creation.

I think it is also interesting to point out that if Adam comes right at the tail end of the 6th millennium and since his lifespan is nearly 1,000 years, then the implication of this is that it is Adam that lives during the Day 7 of a creation, which is when Christians believe that Christ shall rule and reign as king of God's Kingdom during the Millennium.

So, isn’t it a bit ironic that for centuries and centuries many sects of Christians have held Adam in scorn and derision and blamed him for all of our troubles? I can’t say that I blame them too much because there are some critical pieces of the narrative that were removed so that they didn’t understand that Adam was fully redeemed not long after he was cast out of the Garden and he was able to regain his throne from Cain.

What labours did Adam and Eve pursue throughout the period of their nearly 1,000 year lives? We know that Adam was given dominion and ruled as a king and we also know that Adam was a high priest. So, he did rule and reign victoriously over his kingdom during the remainder of his life after he was redeemed and re-enthroned.

We also know that Adam had a very specific task to perform and that Eve was given to him to be a helpmeet and companion to assist him in this great work. It was Adam’s job to give all of the “creatures” their “name”. They were all brought before Adam and he determined for them what their “new name” should be.

Of course, the "little child's" milk version of this gives you the idea that at least a planetary physical creation had taken place and that all of these actual creatures we relate to as the animals were brought to him and told they were this or that. But, if you stay in keeping with the metaphor here, what actually was happening is Adam was assigning all of the souls of men into the various levels of glory depicted in the days of creation that Paul also made reference to when speaking of our resurrection in the world to come.

So, a very nifty conclusion we reach while on this journey of discovery is that Adam, as Christ, ruling and reigning during the 7th Day millennium as the King of the Kingdom of God performs all of the labours necessary to consider each individual who has lived during the previous 6 days of creation and to assign to them a “new name” or a new “station” of glory that they will enjoy in the new creation to follow.

Some of us who are fishes will very likely be given the same name by our Judge. Some of us in this lifetime felt we just weren’t satisfied with standard Christianity and we wanted to evolve into a higher level of glory and joined a spiritual body represented by the higher order creatures. Some wouldn’t be satisfied until they had the complete fullness of the glory of the Father at the stature of “man”.

It also stands to reason that the redemption of Adam and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in victory was like the birth of something brand new that had not previously existed in previous millennia. This Day of Judgment would be a day of division. This also sounds a lot like the agenda Day 1 of a new creation cycle is.

What we see here is that Adam represents both the ending of the previous creation cycle and the beginning of the new cycle of creation. The Millennium is in fact Day 7 of the old cycle occurring simultaneously with Day 1 of the new cycle. The old creation begins to die while the new creation begins its birth.

In this manner, by following this line of reasoning, you come to understand that the Alpha and the Omega, the Almighty God, is none other than Adam as Christ sitting in the seat and throne of the Father, ruling and reigning and judging all things.

 

[kylixguru]

I think taking the creation accounts (there are two) literal, it takes away from what the stories are actually trying to convey. They are myth, and that is not to say that they are false (such a definition of myth simply is illogical and I think lazy). I think that creation myths, like myths in general, at the basis, do portray a truth or truths.

When the creation stories do talk about creating, I think it is quite clear that they are referring to a cosmic creation. I would say that because creation stories in general reference a cosmic creation. I don't think the authors assumed they were writing history, because I think they were more intelligent than that. But it played a part in the truth they were trying to convey.

I agree there is much value in reading the Bible from different points of view. It contains such universal patterns that there is application in numerous ways.
I guess I'd like to say I'm not so much interested in which ONE way to understand it is correct, as that takes away from the full value the text can offer us.

I'm interesting in knowing what you think of exploring looking at it in a purely local manner. Have you ever tried this before?

 

[Shermana]

I think taking the creation accounts (there are two) literal, it takes away from what the stories are actually trying to convey. They are myth, and that is not to say that they are false (such a definition of myth simply is illogical and I think lazy). I think that creation myths, like myths in general, at the basis, do portray a truth or truths.

When the creation stories do talk about creating, I think it is quite clear that they are referring to a cosmic creation. I would say that because creation stories in general reference a cosmic creation. I don't think the authors assumed they were writing history, because I think they were more intelligent than that. But it played a part in the truth they were trying to convey.

There is no reason to conclude that the authors did not intend it to be read as literal history, and this has been the overwhelming concensus of Rabbinical thought. The NT itself regards the generation of the flood and Adam and Abel as real beings. To say that the authors were just "playing along" I'd call pure revisionism.

 

[kylixguru]

There is no reason to conclude that the authors did not intend it to be read as literal history, and this has been the overwhelming concensus of Rabbinical thought. The NT itself regards the generation of the flood and Adam and Abel as real beings. To say that the authors were just "playing along" I'd call pure revisionism.

Adam, Abel, Noah, etc. were real beings _of flesh and bone_.

 

[outhouse]

Adam, Abel, Noah, etc. were real beings _of flesh and bone_.

not according to any credible historian.

Noah is a known 100% myth borrowed from Mesopotamians who borrowed it from Sumerians when the Euphrates overflowed in 2900 BC and king Ziusudra is said to have gone down the river on a barge.


Israelites did not exist prior to 1200 BC and they formed from displaced Canaanites not from a enslaved race leaving Egypt. This is not up for debate and pretty much a known fact.


So this leaves you trying to explain how ancient displaced Canaanites knew history going back 2800 years previous to their culture, from a unknown culture and unknown language, from a unknown race.

BUT in this case we know Mesopotamian mythology which was used by Canaanites and Israelites heavily influenced both cultures. This includes the adam legend where they called him Adamu thousand years before Israelites formed their own culture.

 

[outhouse]

Therefore, it is the creation of a specific local tribe who has their own specific plot of ground and the covenants associated with that land that will enable them to live in a peaceful and unmolested state as long as they keep those covenants.

have they ever been truely at peace?

or have they for the most part, been a warring cullture in conflict for thousands of years, after only existing for 3200 years?

it would alleviate global contentions considerably and unshackle useful minds and intelligence that can be put to more productive mental exercises than the fantasy most Abrahamic religious groups seem to be steeped in. This seems to be a critical insight missed somehow.

because your stating we should all follow your personal view of mythology that has no real backing by any credible historian.


I think you may be missing the point, if the population of all people came together under any belief, many problems would be solved.



why dont we try for what historians claim as reality

Hundreds of years after a culture formed, and they developped their own writing. After a few hundred years they began writing in mythology and theology to describe the natural world around them they knew absolutely nothing about. They wrote to teach these primitive barbaric people valuable lessons and how to better their lives and give these poor oppressed people not only identity, but a light at the end of the tunnel.


The beauty is lost going in deeper then needed KISS applies

 

[kylixguru]

not according to any credible historian.

I am not aware of any credible historians of _flesh and bone_ beings, are you?

 

[kylixguru]

have they ever been truely at peace?

or have they for the most part, been a warring cullture in conflict for thousands of years, after only existing for 3200 years?

because your stating we should all follow your personal view of mythology that has no real backing by any credible historian.

I think you may be missing the point, if the population of all people came together under any belief, many problems would be solved.

why dont we try for what historians claim as reality

Hundreds of years after a culture formed, and they developped their own writing. After a few hundred years they began writing in mythology and theology to describe the natural world around them they knew absolutely nothing about. They wrote to teach these primitive barbaric people valuable lessons and how to better their lives and give these poor oppressed people not only identity, but a light at the end of the tunnel.

The beauty is lost going in deeper then needed KISS applies

I've read your stuff to the extent that I have a pretty good grip on what you drive at.
I've made comments in the past acknowledging most aspects of it and made effort to have you look at things from a unique perspective.
So far, to this point, it doesn't seem like you really are willing to step over and try and see things from the point of view I am offering.
If what I am claiming in what I have written is valid, then all of what you are trying to counter it with is moot.
I am not so much concerned about what happened 4000 years ago. What I am incredibly astounded by is how these old alleged myths have actually be hidden behind a sealed veil as prophecy and I am seeing very clearly how they are real right here and right now. You are stuck in the past looking at all the gory and gritty details, which I believe there is some value in, but if you want to dial in on what the main intent of the vast majority of the Bible pertains to then stick around and lay your biases down and at least play with my ideas and explore them sincerely and see if you can at least say "Ok, I now get what you are talking about and ...."

Until I know you "get it" and see what I am seeing how I see it, you aren't going to know how to really address me on these issues.

 

[james2ko]

I'm sparking up a new thread from this comment in another thread:

The context you drew attention to, that Cain built a city and got wives from elsewhere, suggests that there is something underlying the creation narrative that did not omit the possibility that people were in existence contemporary to and even prior to Adam.

If this is true, this rules out the possibility that the creation narrative pertains to a cosmic, a galactic or even a planetary scope. I would like to purport that the creation narrative pertains to a specific local area and a specific tribe of people only, as you seem to be alluding to above.

I imagine people have tried to explore this line of reasoning before so I would like to hear about those attempts, how far you got and why you reached the conclusion you did. I'll share some of my discoveries in pursuit of exploring this line of reasoning for your consideration and especially for your substantive critique.

What if the flecks of dust Adam's body was made from were actually people formerly in an uninspired state? Adam's body then would have been formed by flecks of dust (people) having the "breath of life" blown into their nostrils. Therefore, Adam was the group of people who attained to a state of mind we would call enlightenment, spiritual resurrection, spiritual birth, being born again, etc. acting in union as a distinct body.

If that is the case then it is possible that the other aspects of the creation narrative could also apply to how people are organized into various spiritual bodies. Thus, it is a narrative that uses symbols to say how one tribal group would undergo a period of time as a full cycle plays out, that also appears to be cyclic in nature that will have a new beginning out of the former cycle's ending.

So, is there some indication in the text itself that provides any clues that the creation account actually pertains to people? The answer seems to me to be: Yes.

What do you make of the passage in Genesis 2:4 that right after the days of creation are described with all of their elements it says: "These are the generations..."?

Doesn't it seem plausible that we are not talking about a cosmic, galactic or even planetary thing if it says all of that stuff actually pertains to generations, which are people?

I guess it would be appropriate to continue our conversation from this thread on this one. Here's my last reply:

Ok, this particular excerpt stood out to me:So, obviously we had a shift when there was finally enough credibility to the arguments of the geologists that the planet was much older than the prevailing belief was that the earth was created less than 6,000 years ago.The Gap Theory was born out of necessity.

I would agree but there's one problem. There is documented evidence the theory pre-dated Darwin and the invention of radio-metric dating by almost 2000 years.

Unfortunately, instead of entirely discrediting themselves for now being exposed to have been wrong all along, you want me to dismiss my discoveries that have far more clarity, precision and accuracy in order to adopt this "stop gap" Gap Theory? I can tell you with 100% surety. The Gap Theory is wrong.

We can prove the validity of the theory from scripture, I gave you Gen 2:4. The wiki article had a few more. I'm sure you have plenty of scriptural references proving the theory wrong. So lets see 'em...

 

[allright]

So this leaves you trying to explain how ancient displaced Canaanites knew history going back 2800 years previous to their culture, from a unknown culture and unknown language, from a unknown race.

This leaves you to try and explain how historians today know history from 6800 years ago and can tell us what is true and what isnt

 

[kylixguru]

I guess it would be appropriate to continue our conversation from this thread on this one. Here's my last reply:



I would agree but there's one problem. There is documented evidence the theory pre-dated Darwin and the invention of radio-metric dating by almost 2000 years.



We can prove the validity of the theory from scripture, I gave you Gen 2:4. The wiki article had a few more. I'm sure you have plenty of scriptural references proving the theory wrong. So lets see 'em...

This is the thread where those scriptural references are available.
Darwin and radio-metric dating are totally irrelevant to this discussion here.

 

[kylixguru]

So this leaves you trying to explain how ancient displaced Canaanites knew history going back 2800 years previous to their culture, from a unknown culture and unknown language, from a unknown race.

This leaves you to try and explain how historians today know history from 6800 years ago and can tell us what is true and what isnt

Until historians sincerely investigate whether the pre-abraham portion of the Bible actually pertains to flesh and bone bodies, they will not have a credible opinion where the historicity of Noah, Adam, etc. are concerned. The reason Adam lived nearly a thousand years is because Adam was a distinct society as a flesh and bone being.

This type of history telling was common-place. It enabled a more complex and intricate level of meaning be told in more simplistic sounding narratives. Today these narratives are dismissed as myth, but they were simply an ancient form of historical short-hand, if you will.

They are also a very useful dialect within which oracles may be written, which is what the Bible's creation narrative actually is. It is both history and prophecy at the same time because the cycles repeat.

 

[james2ko]

What do you make of the passage in Genesis 2:4 that right after the days of creation are described with all of their elements it says: "These are the generations..."?

1. I explained the meaning of this passage in the other thread. It is simply a summary statement of the first two chapters of Genesis and suggests the earth's mulitple "births" or "histories"--not people. [/quote]

Doesn't it seem plausible that we are not talking about a cosmic, galactic or even planetary thing if it says all of that stuff actually pertains to generations, which are people?

2. The Hebrew noun "generations" (toldah) is modifying the nearest prepositional phrase--"of the heavens and earth"--not people. To imply people would be engaging in eisegesis.

This is the thread where those scriptural references are available.

3. Well, lets see the passages in scripture that prove the Gap Theory wrong.

Darwin and radio-metric dating are totally irrelevant to this discussion here.

4. You're the one who claimed the Gap theory was born out of necessity. I simply proved how that assertion is false. If the theory was being suggested almost two millennia before science could accurately measure the age of the earth, then my reply has much relevance.

 

[kylixguru]

1. I explained the meaning of this passage in the other thread. It is simply a summary statement of the first two chapters of Genesis and suggests the earth's mulitple "births" or "histories"--not people.

Your explanation of that passage is unsatisfactory to me.
It glosses over meanings that to me are clearly present.
The way I understand it makes everything 100% precise with no glossing of anything.

2. The Hebrew noun "generations" (toldah) is modifying the nearest prepositional phrase--"of the heavens and earth"--not people. To imply people would be engaging in eisegesis.

Sorry, I don't know what the word eisegesis means.
I am not steeped in the learning, philosophies and traditions of men.

We have the phrase: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth"

Lets minimally modify that phrase so that your meaning and my meaning can be compared and checked for accuracy within the overall context.

My meaning: "These are the generations of people within the heavens and within the earth"

Your meaning: "These are generations of heavens and generations of earths".

Here are some distinguishing aspects or points of comparison:
- I take the entirety of a creation as being a single instance of what is meant by saying "the heavens and the earth". Therefore, the phrase "generations of" means to me the people within the new heavens and the new earth just described.
- You omit the implication that people are involved and apply the phrase "generations of" to whatever is meant by "the heavens and the earth". So, by your manner of interpreting we should be able to decipher generations of heavens and generations of earths in the account of the days of creation.
- I take the term "generations" in the same way it is used in Genesis 6:9 to mean genealogy of people. You should notice that it is the same underlying word in Hebrew too.

3. Well, lets see the passages in scripture that prove the Gap Theory wrong.

We are discussing one of them right now.

4. You're the one who claimed the Gap theory was born out of necessity. I simply proved how that assertion is false. If the theory was being suggested almost two millennia before science could accurately measure the age of the earth, then my reply has much relevance.

Also, I should remind you, I'm not into "proof".
If a person is resistant to the Holy Spirit there is nothing anyone can say or do to prove anything to them.

 

[kylixguru]

4. You're the one who claimed the Gap theory was born out of necessity. I simply proved how that assertion is false. If the theory was being suggested almost two millennia before science could accurately measure the age of the earth, then my reply has much relevance.

So if the Gap Theory was the original truth intended all along, it doesn't say much for the entirety of 18th century Christians who were all wrong and who had been wrong for how many centuries?

If the precepts of men and traditions of the fathers were shrouded in such darkness of mind before science came along to give them a wake-up call, what makes them all of a sudden gain credibility to have me just presuppose they now have it right and that an alternative understanding is not worth sincere investigation and exploration?

 

[fallingblood]

I agree there is much value in reading the Bible from different points of view. It contains such universal patterns that there is application in numerous ways.
I guess I'd like to say I'm not so much interested in which ONE way to understand it is correct, as that takes away from the full value the text can offer us.

I'm interesting in knowing what you think of exploring looking at it in a purely local manner. Have you ever tried this before?

I could see some value in it. Even though I will continue to see it as myth, I think that necessarily means that I have to see some truth in it. And I definitely do.

Looking at the second creation account (the one with Adam and Eve) it does appear local. Now, I don't think the authors ever believed it to be historically true, but I do think they would have related ideas about their origins in the story. So that would necessarily be a local idea.

I think the biggest and most important idea that they showcase is that a large strand of early Hebrews came from Mesopotamia. The fact that they place their origin story, or creation story in that area should speak volumes.

So, I think there is some good that can come from looking at it as a local event, but for me, I still have to see I as mythology.

 

[kylixguru]

So, I think there is some good that can come from looking at it as a local event, but for me, I still have to see I as mythology.

Did you catch on to what a "flesh and bone" body is and really give that some thought?

This is one of the crucial aspects of what I presented that would enable you to decipher what appears to be a myth into something that can be taken in a literal manner seriously and precisely.

If you did catch on to what that distinction potentially opens up, what prevents you from saying "No wonder they said Adam lived to be 930 years old, that makes sense now!"

I think for someone to read things in the Bible where details are given, especially in the primal and generative portion that lays the foundation for everything, but entirely gloss over them, are depriving themselves.

For example, you will never detect Jesus speaking in such a way to say "C'mon you guys, why are you taking these things so seriously? Don't you know those are just myths we are free to dabble with and glean whatever inspiration comes without really expecting them to make complete sense?"