Can a literal Genesis creation story really hold up?

[Thief]

Theology is not history.

Theology is the study of nature of deity or deities, and/or the study of religious belief.

Theology (as well as religion or faith and spirituality) is not history (or archaeology) or science.

People living to 900+ years fall in the realm of mythology, not history. People made directly from dust, dirt, earth, soil or clay, also fall under the category of myth. Talking serpent or donkey showed that the stories are fables and superstitions. There are no evidences to support a global flood, or mass-exodus of former slaves and invasion of Canaan, also made all these events - myths or make-believe. Jesus exorcizing demons are superstitions and legends.

All of which, make for interesting stories, but hardly make them - "historical" or "real".

And none of these stories were even original.

You are made of dust...and dust you will be
and yes this is theology.

Talking snakes?....no.
I see it as a notation of character.

The rest of the book is all fine and good....as long as you are seeking the good in it.

It's not about affirming the incidents....as much as the effect the story has on you.

I don't nod my head to everything told to me.
But I do look to the value of the scenario.

 

[Iti oj]

You are made of dust...and dust you will be
and yes this is theology.

Talking snakes?....no.
I see it as a notation of character.

The rest of the book is all fine and good....as long as you are seeking the good in it.

It's not about affirming the incidents....as much as the effect the story has on you.

I don't nod my head to everything told to me.
But I do look to the value of the scenario.

I've looked and found nothing of value.

 

[Thief]

I've looked and found nothing of value.

aahhhh.....that's too bad.

 

[Iti oj]

aahhhh.....that's too bad.

I find that insulting.

 

[sojourner]

You are made of dust...and dust you will be
and yes this is theology.

Talking snakes?....no.
I see it as a notation of character.

The rest of the book is all fine and good....as long as you are seeking the good in it.

It's not about affirming the incidents....as much as the effect the story has on you.

I don't nod my head to everything told to me.
But I do look to the value of the scenario.

But the thread concerns whether a literal creation account is viable. That places historic and scientific considerations of the texts at the forefront of our attempt to exegete the texts with regard to the literal veracity of their accounts. There is none.

 

[outhouse]

But the thread concerns whether a literal creation account is viable. That places historic and scientific considerations of the texts at the forefront of our attempt to exegete the texts with regard to the literal veracity of their accounts. There is none.

he s been trolling this all along.


No one really discounts the beauty in allegory or metaphor and the pieces are epic.

Nor that theology is not present.

But he cannot stand history because reality pokes holes in his personal perversion of these text. pretty sad.

 

[Ouroboros]

he s been trolling this all along.


No one really discounts the beauty in allegory or metaphor and the pieces are epic.

What's even worse is that I feel literalists take away from the beauty and hinders full appreciation of the poetic value of the pieces. It's like someone is dissecting Romeo and Juliet for factual accuracies to prove that they did exist for real and completely misses the tragic love story.

 

[outhouse]

What's even worse is that I feel literalists take away from the beauty and hinders full appreciation of the poetic value of the pieces. It's like someone is dissecting Romeo and Juliet for factual accuracies to prove that they did exist for real and completely misses the tragic love story.

And add to that the people who cherry pick the literalisms

Its sad fanaticism Is actually that deep

 

[gnostic]

You are made of dust...and dust you will be
and yes this is theology.

No, thief. You don't understand what "theology" mean.

Theology means, is the definition that I had already given in my previous reply:

Theology is the study of nature of deity or deities, and/or the study of of religious belief.

Do you notice the 2 words in the above definition - "study of"?

The Genesis itself, is a written text, a narrative written in the style of allegory, myth, legend or fable, it is not "theology".

The person or people who originally wrote Genesis, wasn't writing "theology", because they weren't "studying" what they had written.

Theologists can study the text, like Genesis for instance, and do literary analysis or do literary criticism on selected passages, chapters, episode in Genesis, or on the book of Genesis as a whole, to learn about the nature of a god.

The early church fathers, like Irenaeus, Augustine, etc, were theologists. They study selective books or episodes within the OT or NT writings, in order to understand "God" or the "Holy Spirit" or "Jesus". Their books that they had authored are theology, not the individual books in the bible itself. Their (theologists' or church fathers') works are used to interpret the selective texts of bible; that's theology.

The ancient and medieval rabbis who wrote commentaries or exegesis about their interpretation of their scriptures, those works are the works of theology. They have studied their scriptures, just like the early church fathers have.

Can you see the differences between the scriptures and theology?

They are not the one and same. Yes, people (like theologists) can use the bible as platform or as a major source for their studies, but the bible itself (or chapters or verses themselves) is not theology.

Nevertheless, theology is not history or the study of history, and it is certainly not science.

You use word like "theology", but you don't even understand what this word mean, is a new problem in our debate.

 

[Thief]

Theology is the systematic and rational study of God and the nature of religious truths.

Are you saying I am not rational?

I might ask the same of you!!!!

I get theology.
Note my banner and signature.

Genesis happened.

 

[Thief]

But the thread concerns whether a literal creation account is viable. That places historic and scientific considerations of the texts at the forefront of our attempt to exegete the texts with regard to the literal veracity of their accounts. There is none.

You cannot undo religion with a history book.

Genesis Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.

 

[RichardParker]

Genesis Chapter Two has all the earmarks of a science experiment.

*BUAHHHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!! HAHAHAAAAAAA!!! HAAAHAAAHAHAHAAAAAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!

Phuuu...huhuhuuu...
...
Haaaaa....
Haaaa....
Haa...
...
...
...
...
Good one. :clap

 

[Thief]

Keep laughing....you probably know I won't care.

And be sure not to consider, as you might find need to change your mind.

Let's keep it that way.
so then, I won't have to put up with you in heaven.

Boowhaahahahahahahahahah!

 

[Iti oj]

Theif, why do you hate truth and facts?

 

[Thief]

Theif, why so you hate truth and facts?

Something in particular?

 

[Iti oj]

Something in particular?

No, just a genetic aversion to knowledge. Why?

 

[Thief]

No, just a genetic aversion to knowledge. Why?

Got an iq of 125.
How are you doing?

 

[Iti oj]

Got an iq of 125.
How are you doing?

I saw that quiz on Facebook.

 

[Thief]

I used the cd put together by Mensa.

 

[Iti oj]

I used the cd put together by Mensa.

I'm not even sure what you're IQ had to do with aversion to knowledge. People of all IQ numbers can have irrational fears.