Genesis Creation

[ecco]

The structure of the universe as described in Genesis is much the same as all other ancient Near East concepts of the universe.

Perhaps that is because Genesis was put together by the same kind of people who put together "all other ancient Near East concepts of the universe". If a newly discovered god had been the author, we should expect to find many differences.

Looking at this image, it is obvious that it is not an accurate representation of the actual universe. That can not be denied. But, few consider the effect this has on the overall message of the scriptures. That would be none, zero, zip, nada!

There are people who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. There are people, many people, who are outraged that evolution is taught in schools because it conflicts with the Bible.

A rational approach would be to acknowledge that Genesis is storytelling. Anti-evolutionists don't feel that way.

 

[ecco]

You know it was all a set up to frame the serpent and give serpents a bad name. Clearly Adam and Eve may have smoked one of the plants in the garden of Eden and became hungry and ate from the tree of knowledge ( why god did not want them to know the difference of good and evil is one of those mysteries and certainly knowledge must be bad). upon getting caught by God as he was strolling through his garden both turned and pointed to the serpent and said "The serpent made us do it". Since then serpents have had a bad name in the Abrahamic religions.

Of course omniscient God knew exactly what A&E would do from long before He created them. He set them up, knowing they would fail. And then He blamed them and passed on sin and painful childbirth. Whatta Guy!.

 

[Bear Wild]

Of course omniscient God knew exactly what A&E would do from long before He created them. He set them up, knowing they would fail. And then He blamed them and passed on sin and painful childbirth. Whatta Guy!.

You really have to watch of for those omniscient gods don't you know. Just cant trust them can you. Does this have to include Santa Claus who knows if you are naughty or nice. I kind of like the jolly fellow and his is nice to elves and reindeer.

 

[rrobs]

Perhaps that is because Genesis was put together by the same kind of people who put together "all other ancient Near East concepts of the universe". If a newly discovered god had been the author, we should expect to find many differences.

That is a big assumption. Maybe it'd be true if you were that god, but you weren't, and the real one chose not to do so.

There are people who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. There are people, many people, who are outraged that evolution is taught in schools because it conflicts with the Bible.

A rational approach would be to acknowledge that Genesis is storytelling. Anti-evolutionists don't feel that way.

Those who employ such a rational approach seldom, and I do mean seldom, even know the story.

Like yourself I at one time got my truth from the polls. I discovered a much better source of truth. Can you guess what I think that may be?

 

[rational experiences]

Science. A man human is considered an adult man in his twenties.

Yet God thesis claim all presence took six days to form.

Intelligence human said celebrate life count how old you are every year

Said O God the earth moves around the sun one year. You are with God count your age.

When was God scientist human not God in human thinking?

Rational!

Science tries to quote when God never existed in a thesis.

God for a human was always earth and it's heavens.

Not many humans apply rational arguments against science anymore.

Six days is a human living counting time as they live.

Six days does not exist by itself in space.

So why do you scientist keep lying?

I would ask a rational scientist how many days would a UFO radiating mass take to remove physical body of earth mass? The human stated body of God.

As a thesis why earth owned dusts that then combusted into a reaction.

 

[joelr]

Some scholars believe the Bible, some don't. Some laymen believe the Bible, some don't.

The vast majority of historians do not believe the gospels to be historically true. Theologian scholars study the scripture as if it's dictated by a God. The group who takes an actual non-bias look have shown that these stories are no more likely true than any myth.

The veracity of the scriptures is dependent on neither. Truth stands on its own. Of course the question might be, "what is truth?" The scriptures say they are the truth.

The Hindu scripture says they are true, does that make them true? The lessons may stand on their own. Reading myths literal and saying they are real stories has no legs whatsoever? No more than a story about Thor or Atlantis.

Each individual accepts or rejects that proposition. I spent a good chunk of my life rejecting it but now, after honest research, I accept them as the truth. They've done way more for me that way (and others whom I'm able to help) than before. You can't put that in a test tube, but there it is anyway. I know whom I have believed and I know it's made an incredible difference in my life and many others also.

Making differences isn't the topic. People go into all kinds of new-age groups and experience profound change. That is psychology. Honest empirical research does not show supernatural stories to be literally real. Ever. If you feel there is research that supports these tales being true then source them.

 

[joelr]

A big assumption there. To the contrary, I think people who poo poo the scriptures are the ones who haven't studied it, at least for themselves. Too many "experts" have been through the seminary where many professors openly admit the Bible is pure fairy tales. But like I said, virtually none of them actually know the plot line of the fairy tale.

This is highly untrue. I don't think you understand how scripture is studied?
Everything is studied, explained, sources found ....
There are many papers detailing Marks use of the Pauline Epistles and how Mark changes them into events and stories.
This article breaks down Mark and demonstrates the use of Barabbus, Psalms and other fiction, as well as ring structure, triadic cycles and other markers of myth writing vs historical writing. Fictional biographies written like this were common at the time.

The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark
This is just a few examples on one gospel.
They are being read and studied by biblical scholars as they should. Not just read and assumed they are divinely inspired by a random God of one culture like theologians will do.

So they all know the plot line. But they also know which other book it's taken from. And which allegory or metaphor it means and are there uses of literature that demonstrate this is likely a created story rather than history?

 

[rrobs]

This is highly untrue. I don't think you understand how scripture is studied?
Everything is studied, explained, sources found ....
There are many papers detailing Marks use of the Pauline Epistles and how Mark changes them into events and stories.
This article breaks down Mark and demonstrates the use of Barabbus, Psalms and other fiction, as well as ring structure, triadic cycles and other markers of myth writing vs historical writing. Fictional biographies written like this were common at the time.

The Gospels as Allegorical Myth, Part I of 4: Mark
This is just a few examples on one gospel.
They are being read and studied by biblical scholars as they should. Not just read and assumed they are divinely inspired by a random God of one culture like theologians will do.

So they all know the plot line. But they also know which other book it's taken from. And which allegory or metaphor it means and are there uses of literature that demonstrate this is likely a created story rather than history?

I'll bet you couldn't give me at least one verse that says precisely what the subject of the scriptures is. I'd guess the same about most of the scholars you mention. Short of that, neither they nor you are hardly an authority on the matter.

 

[Thief]

In your opinion...

NOT much of a retort

and there is nothing to discuss with you

 

[ChristineM]

NOT much of a retort

and there is nothing to discuss with you

Not a retort but a fact

Jolly good, i win then, thanks

 

[Thief]

Not a retort but a fact

Jolly good, i win then, thanks

not so fast.....

substance first?
or Spirit?

 

[ChristineM]

not so fast.....

substance first?
or Spirit?

Let me quote you

and there is nothing to discuss with you

Also, i have answered your question previously. But just for you... Define spirit.

 

[ecco]

You really have to watch of for those omniscient gods don't you know. Just cant trust them can you. Does this have to include Santa Claus who knows if you are naughty or nice. I kind of like the jolly fellow and his is nice to elves and reindeer.

Santa's knowledge of boys' and girls' attitudes is based on observation, not omniscience.

 

[Bear Wild]

Santa's knowledge of boys' and girls' attitudes is based on observation, not omniscience.

Thank you. I feel much better now.

 

[ecco]

Perhaps that is because Genesis was put together by the same kind of people who put together "all other ancient Near East concepts of the universe". If a newly discovered god had been the author, we should expect to find many differences.

That is a big assumption. Maybe it'd be true if you were that god, but you weren't, and the real one chose not to do so.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "if you were that god". When you say the "real one", you are the one making the very big assumption that your God is the "real one". Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, and most of the people in the world disagree with you.

My only assumption is that the people whose oral traditions ended up in Genesis were similar in nature to other people who lived in the general area at that time. That's a pretty safe assumption.

 

[Thief]

Let me quote you



Also, i have answered your question previously. But just for you... Define spirit.

that part of you that can't answer the question directly

 

[ChristineM]

that part of you that can't answer the question directly

I asked for your definition, spirit has several meanings, and each person puts their own twist on it, i am not a mindreader. If you do not know what you mean then how am i supposed to know what you mean?

 

[ecco]

There are people who believe the Bible is the infallible word of God. There are people, many people, who are outraged that evolution is taught in schools because it conflicts with the Bible.

A rational approach would be to acknowledge that Genesis is storytelling. Anti-evolutionists don't feel that way.

Those who employ such a rational approach seldom, and I do mean seldom, even know the story.

"Know the story"? Seriously? Genesis is not War and Peace or The Gulag Archipelago. I understood Genesis quite well when it was taught to my ten-year-old self in Sunday school. It was as easily understandable as any of my comic books.

Biblical literalists accept the writings as they were written. The only people who muddy the waters are those who need to twist and turn it to try to make it fit their particular beliefs.

 

[ecco]

Like yourself I at one time got my truth from the polls. I discovered a much better source of truth. Can you guess what I think that may be?

Are you suggesting that the poll I referenced is incorrect?
Are you suggesting that God tells you how many people believe Adam & Eve were real people?

 

[Thief]

I asked for your definition, spirit has several meanings, and each person puts their own twist on it, i am not a mindreader. If you do not know what you mean then how am i supposed to know what you mean?

try looking up the definitions

then answer the question

Spirit first?
or substance