Is Genesis True?

[Thief]

You said truth doesn't change.

not sure if I said that....

but anyway.....perspective can change

if you realize an error....change could happen

 

[Dell]

The first couple chapters of the book of Genesis describe the Fall of man from paradise, a state of unity and eternal life with God, to a state of separation, pain, loss, suffering, and death. While it is obvious to most modern readers, and especially those with any modest degree of valid scientific knowledge that the details of the story are not factual historically nor scientifically, is the story true nonetheless? Is there a real truth to the underlying theme portrayed through these symbolic characters, Adam and Eve, that is captured faithfully in the myth of the Garden of Eden?

The 1st 6 books of the bible are probably the worst factual or historical.
Genesis is a compilation of bronze age myths put together during the captivity and after. Joshua falls in right behind it but worse with fictional stories of genocide authorized by God, basically no different than the conquering barbarism of Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. The 6 day creation story is a physical impossibility even with a creating Deity. The steps of creation makes no physical or logical sense along with the flood story. These are obvious ancient myths to explain why and how we are here, stories that the people of the day will relate to. On top of that there is absolutely no archeological evidence to support it but plenty of evidence to refute it.

 

[Thief]

The 1st 6 books of the bible are probably the worst factual or historical.
Genesis is a compilation of bronze age myths put together during the captivity and after. Joshua falls in right behind it but worse with fictional stories of genocide authorized by God, basically no different than the conquering barbarism of Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. The 6 day creation story is a physical impossibility even with a creating Deity. The steps of creation makes no physical or logical sense along with the flood story. These are obvious ancient myths to explain why and how we are here, stories that the people of the day will relate to. On top of that there is absolutely no archeological evidence to support it but plenty of evidence to refute it.

so you are willing to assume......?

an action performed leaves PERMANENT evidence it happened

I don't think so

sometimes only the effect remains

here we are

created by God

 

[Augustus]

I dont think I am ready to say that the ancients made
no distinction between fact and fiction.

That's not what I said. They could understand the difference between someone saying they went to the market yesterday, and a story they invented to amuse their children. Cultural traditions are different to mundane details of daily life though.

In the modern scientifically-minded West, objective truth is something which is seen as socially valuable and we have developed methodologies in order to verify knowledge.

In an ancient, illiterate, tribal society, viewing oral tradition as an attempts to identify an objective historical truth ignores the significant cultural differences that existed. Establishing 'fact', in this sense was not something that the culture valued or was oriented towards (or was even possible). Promoting an abstract 'truth' at the expense of social cohesiveness for example would be insane.

That they were consciously choosing between a cultural tradition being either 'fact' or 'nonsense' assumes they were pretty much thinking like modern Westerners, albeit less educated, who value 'truth' for its own sake. It also relies on a modern conception of religion as being a set of propositional truths to be confirmed or rejected like scientific claims, which is, again, an anachronism based on projecting the modern mindset back to long before it existed.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

While it is obvious to most modern readers, and especially those with any modest degree of valid scientific knowledge that the details of the story are not factual historically nor scientifically, is the story true nonetheless?

I don't see it as factually true.
I don't even see it as spiritually true.
At best, it shows us the truth according to some people who wrote about it. It shows THEIR psychology, not anything real.

So there is no symbolic truth because it's not scientifically factual?

I don't consider many of the "morals" to be learned in Genesis to be moral.

The condition of separation from our divine Source.

Once God is labeled "omnipresent", separation becomes a farce.

We are aware of the higher, divine mind, and the lower beasts of field, and here we are stuck between, seemingly trapped in limbo or purgatory, as it were.

I don't consider this a truth at all. It could be argued non-humans don't mire themselves in stupid over-thinking exercises.

A person lost in thought will more easily be eaten by the tiger.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

not sure if I said that....

but anyway.....perspective can change

if you realize an error....change could happen

You said truth doesn't mean fact. It's a fact there is rebirth. So, my truth is based on fact (experience, observation etc). But you aren't buying it. So, is your belief truth given we believe indifferent things?

Facts dont tend to contradict each other. Two and two doesn't equal four and five at the same time.

Are you not buying rebirth I'd fact?

If not, what is it a lie?

What you believe is it a fact of your truth?

--How do you know which ones fact when truth isn't always fact? And facts don't contradict each other?

 

[Dell]

so you are willing to assume......?

an action performed leaves PERMANENT evidence it happened

I don't think so

sometimes only the effect remains

here we are

created by God

I'm not exactly willing to assume anything? The PERMANENT evidence (archeological, geological, and cosmological contradictions) is the problem with the Genesis story.

Interesting side note, ever compared the Babylonian creation story?

 

[Dell]

Another comparison between the Genesis flood story and Sumarian flood story.

 

[Augustus]

We will use your time machine and find out.

When do you suppose people starting thinking
you were supposed to just believe what the bible
says, as opposed to, what, deciding for yourself
what the intent may have been.

If you want to know the history of the evolution in Western religious, and scientific, thought there are 6 hours worth of lectures here:

Science, Religion and Modernity

I know you've already said you have no interest in watching them, but just in case anyone else does.


It covers issues like the change in viewing religion as an internal virtue, to a set of external, 'factual' propositions (or the kind you are assuming always existed); the Protestant movement towards literalism; and how neither religion nor science, in the modern senses of the terms, really existed until the 17th/18th C.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The first couple chapters of the book of Genesis describe the Fall of man from paradise, a state of unity and eternal life with God, to a state of separation, pain, loss, suffering, and death. While it is obvious to most modern readers, and especially those with any modest degree of valid scientific knowledge that the details of the story are not factual historically nor scientifically, is the story true nonetheless? Is there a real truth to the underlying theme portrayed through these symbolic characters, Adam and Eve, that is captured faithfully in the myth of the Garden of Eden?

Here is the story of Adam and Eve and the "fall" if you like to use that word.

Science doesn't tell us how life first came from non-life. "Abiogenesis" is a mystery. Theists simply say it was the hand of God that somehow brought those amino acids together to form the first protiens that would form the first self replicating molecule -- life. From there, evolution took over, until finally, billions of years later, modern man was born. Thus, we are truly made from the dust of the earth, but with a gazillion steps in between.

Before we became modern man, we were earlier species of the genus Homo. Before that, the Australopithecines, and before than, simply advanced apes. (Technically humans are still classified as Great Apes, but that is merely a scientific distinction.) IOW we were animals. Animals have a certain innocence to them. A cat may torture and toy with her prey before eating it, and we look away in horror. But we don't blame the cat. The cat is not morally aware, and cannot be held responsible for causing unnecessary suffering. And so, in that jungle that we shall call Eden, we were innocent. In that primordial Garden, like animals, we were blissfully unaware, able to "just be" as a Zen Buddhist might say. We were at peace with our selves, in harmony with nature, and in harmony with the Divine hand who gave the Garden the very Laws of Nature which governed it.

But as we evolved our consciousness more and more, something else happened. We began to have notions such as justice and compassion. For a long time, these proto-moral inclinations functions as another instinct. But evolution moved on. Somewhere along the line, humans began to reflect on their own thoughts, and using this metacognition, came to moral sentience. There must have been a day when the first human being experienced an inner discomfort -- he wanted to eat all of the orange, but the orphaned toddler looked so hungry. For the first time, he stopped to think about whether he SHOULD eat all of it, or whether he SHOULD share with the little one. It irritated him because he wanted to eat it so bad, but something within him told him it would be ... bad.

This human had eaten of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. He was the first, but the whole species would follow. And things would NEVER be the same. The peace he had once known, simply following instincts without thinking, was now replaced by the internal war of instinct against conscience. The harmony he had had with Nature? He now had one foot still in the natural world, and one foot out of it, having stepped where Angels walk. Harmony with God? That went down the drain with the rest.

What Christians call "The Fall" is the racial memory of our coming into moral sentience, and the unhappy condition in which we now find ourselves -- still having the instincts of animals, but also having the capacity to rise above them and the ability to figure all of that out. Not really true spiritual beings. Not fully animals but "animals plus". Stuck in the middle, our two natures fighting.

And so the myth, or more aptly put, the racial memory of Genesis 2-3 is incredibly significant. It not only pinpoints a significant element of human nature, but recalls where it came from, even if this memory is captured in creative images rather than scientific or historical language.

 

[Salvador]

The first couple chapters of the book of Genesis describe the Fall of man from paradise, a state of unity and eternal life with God, to a state of separation, pain, loss, suffering, and death. While it is obvious to most modern readers, and especially those with any modest degree of valid scientific knowledge that the details of the story are not factual historically nor scientifically, is the story true nonetheless? Is there a real truth to the underlying theme portrayed through these symbolic characters, Adam and Eve, that is captured faithfully in the myth of the Garden of Eden?

As I've noted elsewhere in some other discussions about Christianity, Jesus's family tree has a time span of 77 generations listed between his generation and Adam whom the Bible claims was the "first man". Reference: (Luke 3:23-38)

However, the Australian aborigines have evidently been in Australia for over a thousand consecutive generations. Reference: Aboriginal Australians - Wikipedia

There have been hundreds of generations of Native Americans between the time their common ancestry migrated from Asia until the time of Christ.
Reference: Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia

The Bible falsely claims there were only 77 generations between Christ and the first man; when people have indeed actually existed for thousands of generations, which proves the Bible and Christianity as being false.

Adam as being the first man and perpetrator of "original sin" is an important premise of Christianity. If Adam wasn't the first man, then there isn't actually any "origin sin". Jesus supposedly died on the Cross to save humankind from "original sin". If there isn't any "original sin" from which to be saved, then Jesus Christ's death on the Cross is pretty pointless and meaningless. Evidently, there were many generations of people prior to the 76th generation before Christ spawned by Adam. So then, Adam, Eve and original sin are mythological. There is neither any "first man" nor "original sin" throughout human evolution. Thus, Jesus Christ having died on the cross to save mankind from "original sin" is not reality but is rather quite mythological.

The first individual of the genus Homo-species formed from a couple of Australopithecus hetero zygotes, each of whom had the same type of chromosome rearrangements formed by fusion of the whole long arms of two acrocentric chromosomes, mated together and reproduced viable and fertile offspring with 46 chromosomes.

This first generation of Homo-habilis then incestuously bred with each other and reproduced the next subsequent generation of Homo-habilis.

References:

1. J. Tjio and A. Levan. 1956. The chromosome number of Man. Hereditas, 42( 1-2): 1-6.
2. W. Ijdo et al.1991. Origin of human chromosome 2: an ancestral telomere-telomere fusión. PNAS, 88: 9051-9056.
3. Meyer et al. 2012 A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, 338:222-226.; K. H. Miga. 2016. Chromosome-specific Centromere sequences provide an estímate of the Ancestral Chromosome 2 Fusion event in Hominin Genome.Journ. of Heredity. 1-8. Doi:10.1093/jhered/esw039.

Therefore, the first living breathing human being was never directly formed out of dirt by God as the Bible falsely claims.

Former Christians, who have this understanding of how humans precisely evolved , know the Biblical tales of Creation are mythological rather than factual.


These myths are the made-up stories of ancient nomadic tribesmen rather than God's word.

 

[Segev Moran]

The first couple chapters of the book of Genesis describe the Fall of man from paradise, a state of unity and eternal life with God, to a state of separation, pain, loss, suffering, and death. While it is obvious to most modern readers, and especially those with any modest degree of valid scientific knowledge that the details of the story are not factual historically nor scientifically, is the story true nonetheless? Is there a real truth to the underlying theme portrayed through these symbolic characters, Adam and Eve, that is captured faithfully in the myth of the Garden of Eden?

I would say it is a mix of things.
Surprising as it might sound, the story of genesis represents a pretty accurate picture of the first moments of the universe creation as described in the big bang theory.
I will not detail it all but give some notes to consider.
That said, whether or not the genesis is a word for word accurate and true is not something that you can have an answer in one or even two pages.
It is a long study that requires a lot of reading and understanding of the Hebrew language.
I can tell you that since i started learning the story, with it genuine meaning and not the translated one in English (the translations I've red are very loos and not always represent the true meaning of each Hebrew word).

In first verses it says that there was an instant of creation, meaning that the universe began to exists in a specific moment in time(out time, as time was also created in that instant moment) and not always existed. this is already a common knowledge and no one contradicts that.
It is also mentioned that the creation was made from two parts, heavens and earth.
Assuming earth is matter, heavens represents all that is not earth (imagine explaining someone 1000 years ago what is space or energy).
It is known to have a different meaning as only later there is a reference to the word "skies" which refers to the actual skies we see today.
The big bang theory speaks of a state of the universe prior to the expansion of matter where there were only primal particles and energy all locked up in a state on plasma.
weirdly enough, Plasma is a liquid and conveniently matches the description of water in the first states of the universe.
even weirder than that, the verses describe a state of darkness! meaning a liquid in dark. the big bang theory explains that the plasma was so hot and intense that light particles could not emerge out of it causing the universe to look as a "dark soup" of sort
moving on, the verses explain that in a specific moment, God said "let there be light". from that instant the entire visible creation has emerged.
Similar to that, the big bang theory explains that for some reason (not known yet, yet the assumption was that the universe cooled enough) and the light particles could "breach out" from the plasma, this caused suddenly our universe to become visible and allowed matter to take form.

The rabbit hole keeps on and on and surprisingly matches too many of the scientific theories to be a coincidence

I am not trying to say that this means every word is accurate, rather that there are too many resemblances to our current knowledge that makes one raise an eye brow as for the knowledge they had back then.

Many claim that this is always the religious people trying to "stitch" the texts to the scientific theories, yet as i see it, the more we discover scientifically we can suddenly explain easier the meaning of the text.
If i were to tell you for example 1000 years ago that there is a ray of fire that hit the stone and carved it (for example),
In the old ages, it will sound enigmatic and hard to explain, today i can simply tell you a laser hit the stone and you will have a clear understanding of what i described in the text

something to think about

 

[Windwalker]

These are obvious ancient myths to explain why and how we are here, stories that the people of the day will relate to.

Is that really what the intentions of the authors were, to attempt a scientific explanation of cause and effect relationships in a material world?

I personally don't see that conclusion as obvious at all, as you state. Why would they bother with all the allegorical stuff then, if it's just about explaining why rain falls from the sky? You see no truths behind the stories, unless it's scientifically factually? You don't see them as talking about the human condition and our existential angst at being aware enough to ponder our own mortality, which sets as apart from the average beast of the field?

Understanding the stories allegorically, you don't see any truth in the them, however fancifully they may be dressed up as, such as a talking snake? Since a snake can't talk, none of the rest should be considered either then? How did you learn about the world as a child then? Were you read science books as a child to teach you about how to get along with the world?

On top of that there is absolutely no archeological evidence to support it but plenty of evidence to refute it.

Sure. That's not the point of the stories. That's a bizarre modern interpretation, trying to make it "scientific" in order to be accepted by scientific reasoning. It's foolish on their part, and foolish to believe them that that's what it's about in the first place!

 

[metis]

Now, when you say not historically true, what exactly does that mean? How true is history? People question the historical authenticity of many references to Jesus, so how reliable is historical accuracy?

When we are talking about Genesis, what compares to the historical accuracy of the creation of the heavens and earth, life, and as they say, the universe and everything? Given that, what is the point of even mentioning "historical truth?"

I don't know how to explain it any more than I have.

BTW, for what it's worth, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught about the "evil" of evolution, and I left that church in my early 20's because of that and another reason. I eventually converted to Catholicism that did not and does not teach that the ToE is somehow evil.

Because of the above, and because I'm an anthropologist, now retired, my orientation is to science, so if any religion/denomination goes against science, I have no interest in them. Maybe this will explain where I'm coming from and why.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't see it as factually true.
I don't even see it as spiritually true.
At best, it shows us the truth according to some people who wrote about it. It shows THEIR psychology, not anything real.

Yes, it does show about their views of themselves and the world, spun in a story of fictitious characters which convey the truth of that reality they found themselves confronted with by the fact of being a human being. But that fact, is something real.

Being human is a real condition. And what is described allegorically, is in fact tangibly real. It was real enough to them to write about it allegorically using these characters, giving a tangible face to it through them. This is what the nature of mythology is, a deeper truth through made up characters whose reality is the readers, or listeners own human experience.

Now, was that limited to them and them only back then? Of course not. People of all ages can relate to what is conveyed in the story, facing one's own death, a sense of existential dread, the pain and fear of separation from others, the world, and their own selves ("and they were afraid"), etc. None of those are anything you experience as a human today? If not, then congratulations, you're Enlightened.

I don't consider many of the "morals" to be learned in Genesis to be moral.

The application of them is not timeless, but culturally relative. The existential elements of the story, are timeless. You experience them yourself today, unless you are Enlightened.

Once God is labeled "omnipresent", separation becomes a farce.

That God is omnipresent, does not mean that you experience God that way. You imagine the world exists outside you, and you outside of the world. That's just perception. Enlightenment on the other hand, actually does experience the omnipresence of the divine. Very much so.

So two people, one who experiences Oneness with all that is, and another who studies it as an object existing outside of themselves. Separation is inherent in the latter perception, and non-existent in the former. No farce there at all. Simply awareness, or non-awareness, entirely on our end of things.

It's actual lived experience, all with varying degrees of unity or non-unity. Some experience separate as absolute isolation from everyone, and end up committing suicide as a result. Others experience the absolute opposite end of that spectrum, and live life full of joy and abundance. The evidence, is people's experiences.

I don't consider this a truth at all. It could be argued non-humans don't mire themselves in stupid over-thinking exercises.

A person lost in thought will more easily be eaten by the tiger.

In reality, there is no "thinking" at all, let alone "over-thinking" when it comes to Enlightenment, or "Union with the Divine", which is what is portrayed in the Genesis myth. It is in fact "thinkingness" and the mistaken belief that our thoughts give us access to actual real reality, that creates the separation in the first place!

So, truly, an Awakened mind, is very much aware of that tiger, as well as all living things within its field of immediate awareness, far more so than anyone "thinking" about the world. I should make a bumper sticker for cars, "Stop thinking and start seeing! Be Aware." I think we'd have a lot less accidents!

 

[Earthling]

I don't know how to explain it any more than I have.

BTW, for what it's worth, I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught about the "evil" of evolution, and I left that church in my early 20's because of that and another reason. I eventually converted to Catholicism that did not and does not teach that the ToE is somehow evil.

Because of the above, and because I'm an anthropologist, now retired, my orientation is to science, so if any religion/denomination goes against science, I have no interest in them. Maybe this will explain where I'm coming from and why.

Well, my thinking is that when something is wrong, it's wrong. That includes my religious thinking or science minded atheists who publicly put down the Bible because of evolution.

You say that the Genesis account is not historically true, which is a statement made out of a sort of ignorance and bias. For two reasons. History and truth are separate concepts. History, even secular history, is filled with lies, legends, half truths, cover ups, propaganda, bias, spurious portions etc. So to say the Bible is historically untrue sounds like a factual and intelligent criticism to someone who doesn't know any better.

The Bible is a history though, the most important, preserved, reliable and accurate history there is, and it contains a very rare account of the creation of the universe that isn't obviously mythological.

People who don't understand it and criticize it due to their interest in science do so at the detriment to, not only the Bible as an historical document of unprecedented significance but science itself. They do this because in their ignorance they confuse the Bible with the nonsense that those who have misrepresented it for thousands of years present but also because they are wrongly afraid of looking like primitive, superstitious and ignorant people.

That's wrong. Check out my far more accurate explanation of Genesis chapter one here.

Edited To Add: Metis refuses to answer and has informed me that I am now on it's permanent ignore list for "arrogance and sarcasm." Coward.

 

[Thief]

I'm not exactly willing to assume anything?

your side note is .....noted

and it remains.....someone was first to walk with God

if you prefer one over the other.....I don't mind

 

[Thief]

It's a fact there is rebirth

looks like a fresh op

 

[Unveiled Artist]

looks like a fresh op

Well. If you (all) don't challenge it and just throw it like an opinion to attack christians instead, it's a waste of time. Facts are facts.

Everyone has their own truths...so if truth is fact and facts don't change, how can two beliefs be considered facts when they contradict each other? (Going by truth is fact)

 

[Earthling]

The 1st 6 books of the bible are probably the worst factual or historical.
Genesis is a compilation of bronze age myths put together during the captivity and after. Joshua falls in right behind it but worse with fictional stories of genocide authorized by God, basically no different than the conquering barbarism of Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. The 6 day creation story is a physical impossibility even with a creating Deity. The steps of creation makes no physical or logical sense along with the flood story. These are obvious ancient myths to explain why and how we are here, stories that the people of the day will relate to. On top of that there is absolutely no archeological [sic] evidence to support it but plenty of evidence to refute it.

Back that up.

I've noticed that critics of the Bible on these forums tend to spout their unfounded opinions and then when questioned they simply assert that if you disagree with them you're uneducated and/or they slink quietly away.

There are two point in this statement of opinion without anything to back it up worth discussing.

1. The 6 day creation story is a physical impossibility.

2. There is no archaeological evidence to support it but plenty of evidence to refute it.