Is Genesis True?

[metis]

Why?

Because it doesn't make sense based on objectively-derived evidence, plus we do know that the Hebrews were aware of a Babylonian epic that was written about a thousand years prior to Genesis that's somewhat similar but appears to be altered to reflect early Jewish teachings.

Pretty much all societies have done this, btw.

 

[Muffled]

someone had to be first to walk with God

that would be Adam

I believe Adam was the first "human" to walk with God but it is likely the gods also did.

 

[Earthling]

Agreed, I am quite aware that romanticizing the past is not the answer. I tend to agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson in that I find a kind of spirituality in seeking to understand the universe with the best tools we have available.

Okay, but why not incorporate that "spirituality" when seeking to understand the ancient text under consideration as well. Often science tries to "explain" some writings in the Bible and completely misses the mark. For example, they will explain the celestial phenomenon in the Book of Revelation; the sun, the moon, the stars, as some primitive superstition regarding eclipses when all they would have to do is look back in some of the texts in the book of Daniel and Ezekiel to see the same terminology being expressed as political and social upheaval. The sun, moon and stars are used to represent this. Or they will try and explain Moses parting the waters as a tsunami. Only they missed the place where it actually occurred by hundreds of miles and the absence of any mention of a wave in the text. Or they will doubt that the average lifespan in David's time was as he wrote, 70-80 years because it was less in the Dark Ages of famine, war and disease.

It seems to me that many people have the tendency to overemphasize either the wisdom or the stupidity of ancient peoples, depending on who you talk to.

I'll give you that.

That last part made me laugh, and it's very true. With my comment on connecting to nature, I was referring to the sense of wellbeing that spending time away from the buzz of technology and frantic schedules often brings to people. Anyone familiar with history knows that the quality (or at least the potential quality) of human life has steadily improved since the Renaissance.

Until the dollar crashes and the electricity is shut down, then we are a bunch of dummies killing each other over food and water while clutching cell phones that don't work in burned out cities.

 

[Muffled]

Truth is dependent on the person. It doesn't need to be historically and scientifically proven to find truth in it. Why does there need to be?

I believe truth is not dependent on anything. It stands on its own.

 

[Earthling]

I believe Adam was the first "human" to walk with God but it is likely the gods also did.

In order to believe that you have to explain God's seventh day of rest which was mentioned as continuing thousands of years later by David and then thousands of years later than that by Paul. The separation between God and man began upon his (Adam's) creation and would have continued until the seventh day, God's rest was complete. Adam's sin set that date back by, so far, but it will come nonetheless.

 

[Muffled]

Make-believe originally passed off
as true, but changing to allegory as
they became unbearably nonsensical
to educated people.

I believe you are making that up.

 

[Audie]

As Confucius supposedly said (paraphrased): The more you know, the more you know you really don't know [much].

Maybe take his advice.

Devilishly clever retort, but best applied to yourself.

Perhaps you would care to deny that in days past,
it was held by Christians that the flood story
was literally true, accurate history?

Lots of them still do, tho educated people who
still want to "believe the bible" explain it away
by calling it "metaphor", or, "allegory".

 

[Earthling]

I believe truth is not dependent on anything. It stands on its own.

It's the evaluation of the truth that is dependent on many things. Truth itself stands on it's own.

 

[Muffled]

Because it doesn't make sense based on objectively-derived evidence, plus we do know that the Hebrews were aware of a Babylonian epic that was written about a thousand years prior to Genesis that's somewhat similar but appears to be altered to reflect early Jewish teachings.

Pretty much all societies have done this, btw.

I believe there is no objectively derived evidence.

I believe the fact that another story exists (Not legitimized by God) does not prevent God from telling His story.

 

[Audie]

I believe Adam was the first "human" to walk with God but it is likely the gods also did.

And you believe that despite all available data
re the ancestry of humankind shows that it is just
a story.

 

[Audie]

I believe you are making that up.

Really.

I have seen you believe a lot of nonsense, so
why not that too.

Do you believe that the whole bible was written
with a wink and a nod, like, we all know this is
just-so stories?

Or that it is not so that educated poeple
realize that the whole 6 day poof and flood
stuff cannot possibly be true?

 

[Muffled]

It's the evaluation of the truth that is dependent on many things. Truth itself stands on it's own.

I believe you are right. We tend to see things based on our own experience. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again and that truth got misshapen into an idea that he had to reenter his mothers womb.

 

[metis]

Devilishly clever retort, but best applied to yourself.

Perhaps you would care to deny that in days past,
it was held by Christians that the flood story
was literally true, accurate history?

Lots of them still do, tho educated people who
still want to "believe the bible" explain it away
by calling it "metaphor", or, "allegory".

Before anyone knew about evolution from a scientific perspective, some biblical scholars, such as Maimonides, figured that much of what's found in the first chapters of Genesis was likely allegory since things simply didn't add up as being literal.

And my "devilishly clever retort" really ain't so "clever" after all since the problem of your previous post is that you cite your opinion as if was a slam-dunk fact. No serious scientist would do that because we know there are limits to our understandings, whereas it appears you haven't discovered that yet.

 

[Audie]

I believe there is no objectively derived evidence.

.

As an "argument from ignorance" that will do fine.

You could perhaps state with equal truth that
you believe there is no "objectively derived evidence."
that there really is a place called Australia.

Educated people, though are aware of a considerable
body of every much empirical evidence for the
existence of Oz, and the non-historicality of the "flood".

 

[metis]

I believe there is no objectively derived evidence.

Then I guess that makes us different.

 

[Earthling]

I think that when the bible folk saw something or became aware of something not having the words or even the language to communicate the knowledge, they resorted to parable and metaphor. Sometimes reading or hearing those, I think: "Oh Hey!"

And how does that bear on the Genesis account? Take for example . . . 6 days.

 

[Earthling]

As an "argument from ignorance" that will do fine.

You could perhaps state with equal truth that
you believe there is no "objectively derived evidence."
that there really is a place called Australia.

Educated people, though are aware of a considerable
body of every much empirical evidence for the
existence of Oz, and the non-historicality of the "flood".

Oh, they are? What were the measurements of the Ark? How many animals were needed? How much space was there? Hurry! Google that and see what you come up with. Enlighten us oh educated one. Or just make a grandiose assumption based upon ignorance and over confidence on your part.

 

[Muffled]

Really.

I have seen you believe a lot of nonsense, so
why not that too.

Do you believe that the whole bible was written
with a wink and a nod, like, we all know this is
just-so stories?

Or that it is not so that educated poeple
realize that the whole 6 day poof and flood
stuff cannot possibly be true?

I believe your assessment is based on your own biases not on the facts.

I believe the whole Bible is inspired by God but only parts of it contain direct statements by Him.

I believe you may find this difficult to believe but educated people don't know everything and some of the things they think they know are false.

 

[Earthling]

Devilishly clever retort, but best applied to yourself.

Perhaps you would care to deny that in days past,
it was held by Christians that the flood story
was literally true, accurate history?

Lots of them still do, tho educated people who
still want to "believe the bible" explain it away
by calling it "metaphor", or, "allegory".

As do you who don't want to believe the Bible call it such. What's metaphor or allegorical about the Genesis account in question?

 

[Audie]

Before anyone knew about evolution from a scientific perspective, some biblical scholars, such as Maimonides, figured that much of what's found in the first chapters of Genesis was likely allegory since things simply didn't add up as being literal.

And my "devilishly clever retort" really ain't so "clever" after all since the problem of your previous post is that you cite your opinion as if was a slam-dunk fact. No serious scientist would do that because we know there are limits to our understandings, whereas it appears you haven't discovered that yet.

some biblical scholars, such as Maimonides, figured that much of what's found in the first chapters of Genesis was likely allegory since things simply didn't add up as being literal.

So, you are agreeing with what I said; it was presented as
fact, but some figured out that it is not

You would deny that then there is a choice-dismiss the
story as BS, putting the integrity of the whole "bible"
at peril, or, explaining the phony story away as
"allegory"?

The rest of what you say is pointless snark.

I can do that too. Lets not.