• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Other than the Hebrew Bible and references from the NT, Quran, and Baha'i writings what evidence is there that any of it happened?

Specifically in regards to stories regarding Moses:

The crossing of the Red Sea has a spiritual meaning. It was a spiritual journey, through and above the sea of corruption and iniquity of the Pharaoh and his people, or army. By the help of God through Moses, the Israelites were able to cross this sea safely and reach the Promised Land (spiritual state) while Pharaoh and his people were drowned in their own corruption. The Egyptian History recorded even trifling events. Had such a wonderful thing happened as the partings of the physical sea it would also have been recorded. – Daily Lessons Received at ‘Akka, p. 45.

The Trouble with Miracles
Still, same problem. This information was allegedly given to Moses by God. Do Baha'is believe that to be true? The information was related to Moses as being factual, historical events. I'm more in agreement with Gnostic that it is religion myth. But Baha'i say it's true, but only in a symbolic fashion. So when does the Bible become actual, factual, real events? Or, is it still filled with exaggeration? Like Daniel's friends not getting burned in a furnace? Or, people being hundreds of years old? Or, Jesus healing a blind person? Yes, I know. He was "spiritually" blind and Jesus showed him the truth.

Then what really did happen? Are any of the events in the Bible real, or are they all symbolic and never really happened?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
New Your 1-6 comments are not evidence. Evidence will tell HOW those things prove the BB. It is amazing how many evos think posting a comment is evidence.

The THEORY of relativity does not prove the BB.
When are you going to learn that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with astronomy (or astrophysics), or with the theory of Relativity or physical cosmology (eg the Big Bang)?

Evolution is biology, not astronomy or astrophysics.

Einstein's Relativity is far more useful in astronomy and astrophysics, like universe, galaxies, stars, etc, measuring distance and speed, and the energy required to approach the speed of the light. So it has nothing to do with biology of life.

And Evolution and Relativity have nothing to do with each other. No life form can move faster than speed of light. The only thing faster than the speed of light is the cosmic "space".

Are you so ignorant or blind that you cannot distinguish astronomy from life science?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Still, same problem. This information was allegedly given to Moses by God. Do Baha'is believe that to be true? The information was related to Moses as being factual, historical events. I'm more in agreement with Gnostic that it is religion myth. But Baha'i say it's true, but only in a symbolic fashion. So when does the Bible become actual, factual, real events? Or, is it still filled with exaggeration? Like Daniel's friends not getting burned in a furnace? Or, people being hundreds of years old? Or, Jesus healing a blind person? Yes, I know. He was "spiritually" blind and Jesus showed him the truth.

Then what really did happen? Are any of the events in the Bible real, or are they all symbolic and never really happened?

Baha'is as you know believe Moses was a real person who was a Manifestation of God who guided the Hebrew peoples. His story like that of Noah and Adam are no doubt embellished with mythology. While miracles can happen and God Has the power to intervene in powerful ways, we have no actual objective historic evidence to methodically deconstruct the entire history of the Hebrew peoples and establish fact from fiction.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
All elements in my body are not lifeless. Nothing with DNA is lifeless. However that is irrelevant. the origin of life can't have its source in dead elements.

As usual you are wrong, thinking opinions are evidence. I understand evolution better than you do and I understand the proven science of Genetics much better than you do, but it does not require much understanding to exceed yours.

And you are wrong about your opinions being ignored.

It would help; you to post some evidence if you understood what evidence is.
Have you ever studied basic chemistry, omega, in high school?

If you have, then you should remember the differences between molecules and elements, or between compounds and elements.

Elements are just made of 2 or more of the same atoms. For instance, pure iron is made out element of two iron atoms.

But when you mix the iron atom with another different atom, like steel, you will get a compound (or more precisely "alloy") of iron atoms with carbon atoms.

Molecules and compounds are made of two or more different atoms.

Water for instance, is made of two different atoms - hydrogen and oxygen - but it required 2 hydrogen atoms to bond with one oxygen, hence it is denoted by the symbol H2O. Water is a molecule, not element.

A large part of chemical composition in the human body are made out of molecules and compounds, not elements. Blood, bones, tissues, fat, skin, hair, etc, are all compounds of different atoms, bonded together.

The most basic molecule, or more precisely macromolecule or large molecule, in DNA and RNA, which are form of nucleic acid, which are made out of number of different atoms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen atoms, which can be bonded in a number of different ways.

None of our organs are made of a single element.

Edit: sorry, but I prematurely and accidentally hit Post Reply button.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Baha'is as you know believe Moses was a real person who was a Manifestation of God who guided the Hebrew peoples. His story like that of Noah and Adam are no doubt embellished with mythology. While miracles can happen and God Has the power to intervene in powerful ways, we have no actual objective historic evidence to methodically deconstruct the entire history of the Hebrew peoples and establish fact from fiction.
That's far more honest and open-minded than omega2xx's position here.

You are able to recognise that scriptures are not history books, and you can also recognise it can be distorted and exaggerated.

Most Christians and Jews, these days, also know that some of the stories are allegories in their respective scriptures.

Unfortunately, others still believe in them literally.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Still, same problem. This information was allegedly given to Moses by God. Do Baha'is believe that to be true? The information was related to Moses as being factual, historical events. I'm more in agreement with Gnostic that it is religion myth. But Baha'i say it's true, but only in a symbolic fashion. So when does the Bible become actual, factual, real events? Or, is it still filled with exaggeration? Like Daniel's friends not getting burned in a furnace? Or, people being hundreds of years old? Or, Jesus healing a blind person? Yes, I know. He was "spiritually" blind and Jesus showed him the truth.

Then what really did happen? Are any of the events in the Bible real, or are they all symbolic and never really happened?

As fallible human beings we do not know what actually happened, because there are no known witnesses nor first person authors at the time the events took place. The Baha'i view is that there are remains elements of Revelation and spiritual lessons in these writings, but the problem remains they are clouded in ancient mythology and a cultural perspective.

For example; There are numerous references to polytheism and hierarchical polytheism in these ancient scriptures that are not true and corruption of Monotheism from the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Baha'i perspective.

The bottom line is that the eternal evolving message of Revelation does not reflect a literal human interpretation of scripture at any one point in time. The alternative is not comforting nor pleasant to Theists.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
That's far more honest and open-minded than omega2xx's position here.

You are able to recognise that scriptures are not history books, and you can also recognise it can be distorted and exaggerated.

Most Christians and Jews, these days, also know that some of the stories are allegories in their respective scriptures.

Unfortunately, others still believe in them literally.

I set this thread up to better understand the beliefs of YECs. @omega2xx declined to continue discussing his beliefs with me, as he correctly concluded I would never change and would endlessly provide counter arguments. But it has been good to consider different beliefs.

I can't see any future for a theology that views genesis literally, but evidently its alive and a significant force in the USA. In New Zealand it is a fringe belief of those who are not well regarded. I time the people of the USA will change too.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
When are you going to learn that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with astronomy (or astrophysics), or with the theory of Relativity or physical cosmology (eg the Big Bang)?

You are the one who brought up the BB, not me.

[/QUOTE]Evolution is biology, not astronomy or astrophysics.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing in biology that supports evolution. In fact genetics refute evolution.

Einstein's Relativity is far more useful in astronomy and astrophysics, like universe, galaxies, stars, etc, measuring distance and speed, and the energy required to approach the speed of the light. So it has nothing to do with biology of life.

And Evolution and Relativity have nothing to do with each other. No life form can move faster than speed of light. The only thing faster than the speed of light is the cosmic "space".

Are you so ignorant or blind that you cannot distinguish astronomy from life science?

Go to a mirror, look into it and read the last part of your post to yourself.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Have you ever studied basic chemistry, omega, in high school?

If you have, then you should remember the differences between molecules and elements, or between compounds and elements.

Elements are just made of 2 or more of the same atoms. For instance, pure iron is made out element of two iron atoms.

But when you mix the iron atom with another different atom, like steel, you will get a compound (or more precisely "alloy") of iron atoms with carbon atoms.

Molecules and compounds are made of two or more different atoms.

Water for instance, is made of two different atoms - hydrogen and oxygen - but it required 2 hydrogen atoms to bond with one oxygen, hence it is denoted by the symbol H2O. Water is a molecule, not element.

A large part of chemical composition in the human body are made out of molecules and compounds, not elements. Blood, bones, tissues, fat, skin, hair, etc, are all compounds of different atoms, bonded together.

The most basic molecule, or more precisely macromolecule or large molecule, in DNA and RNA, which are form of nucleic acid, which are made out of number of different atoms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen atoms, which can be bonded in a number of different ways.

None of our organs are made of a single element.


Thanks for the chemistry lesson, but it is irrelevant---lifeless elements can't be the source for life.

Edit: sorry, but I prematurely and accidentally hit Post Reply button.

No problem. I do that all the time and it drives me nuts(no comments about me already being nuts). ;)
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
I set this thread up to better understand the beliefs of YECs. @omega2xx declined to continue discussing his beliefs with me, as he correctly concluded I would never change and would endlessly provide counter arguments. But it has been good to consider different beliefs.

I can't see any future for a theology that views genesis literally, but evidently its alive and a significant force in the USA. In New Zealand it is a fringe belief of those who are not well regarded. I time the people of the USA will change too.

I can't see any future in a theology that does not recognize an omnipotent God. It is a solid theology around the world who are well regarded in conservative theology. In time conservative Christianity will not change their belief in a literal creation. Those who insist it is only figurative, don't have an omnipotent God. Their God is to small.

Here is an old bone we chewed on for awhile---I seen no future in a religion that rejects the LITERAL resurrection of Jesus, which is clearly taught in several passages in the Bible.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
You are the one who brought up the BB, not me.
Ah, what are you talking about, omega???

The quote you just replied to, is the only time I mentioned the Big Bang, in THIS THREAD.

Maybe you are talking about someone else, because I didn't bring it up until my last post, so I was responding to you.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Thanks for the chemistry lesson, but it is irrelevant---lifeless elements can't be the source for life.

That's absurd, omega.

You are the one who brought up "elements" in life, in the 1st place, so of course chemistry is relevant.

If you are going to talk about element in biology, then you need to grasp at least some basic chemistry, especially relating to living matters.

What you can't even seem to grasp are the differences between "element" and "molecule".

All biological matters are made of all different types of molecules and compounds, not elements.

Cell, gene, DNA, RNA, chromosome, protein, muscle tissues, fat, etc, they are all made out of molecules, not elements.

No elements make living matters, molecules do.

If you don't think it is relevant, then you don't understand biology, or chemistry, at all.

Water (H2O) is the most abundant of all molecules in our body, but water itself is completely lifeless.

It is only when water molecules combined with other molecule, that matters are "living", possible.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Ah, what are you talking about, omega???

The quote you just replied to, is the only time I mentioned the Big Bang, in THIS THREAD.

Maybe you are talking about someone else, because I didn't bring it up until my last post, so I was responding to you.


Maybe so.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
That's absurd, omega.

You are the one who brought up "elements" in life, in the 1st place, so of course chemistry is relevant.

If you are going to talk about element in biology, then you need to grasp at least some basic chemistry, especially relating to living matters.

What you can't even seem to grasp are the differences between "element" and "molecule".

All biological matters are made of all different types of molecules and compounds, not elements.

Cell, gene, DNA, RNA, chromosome, protein, muscle tissues, fat, etc, they are all made out of molecules, not elements.

No elements make living matters, molecules do.

If you don't think it is relevant, then you don't understand biology, or chemistry, at all.

Water (H2O) is the most abundant of all molecules in our body, but water itself is completely lifeless.

It is only when water molecules combined with other molecule, that matters are "living", possible.

It is still irrelevant---what has not life can't be the source of what is living.

I don't need to know chemistry to know that, and if you believe in evolution, you need to grasp some basic elements of genetics.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Your 1-6 comments are not evidence. Evidence will tell HOW those things prove the BB. It is amazing how many evos think posting a comment is evidence.

The THEORY of relativity does not prove the BB.

Yes, those actually are all evidence for the Big Bang. In fact, they are very, very good evidence for it.

Oh my. Are you going to claim relativity is 'only a theory???? Seriously?

All elements in my body are not lifeless. Nothing with DNA is lifeless. However that is irrelevant. the origin of life can't have its source in dead elements.

This is flat out wrong.

First, DNA is a *chemical*. In and of itself, it is not alive. It can be analyzed in all the ways available to chemistry.

Second, DNA is made from atoms: carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorus, oxygen. These are the *elements* that form DNA.

NONE of these are alive. A carbon atom in DNA is exactly like every other carbon atom in the universe. It has the same properties and reacts in the same ways. The oxygen atoms in your DNA are not alive. They are exactly like the oxygen atoms in the air.

The point is that life *is* made of things that are not alive. The basic elements: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc are NOT alive. The DNA is NOT alive.

What life *is* is a very complex collection of chemical reactions. There is no 'life force' that makes living things different chemically that anything else. What is different is the *arrangement* not the elements that compose living things.

Not only can life have its origin in 'dead elements', but life *today* is ultimately made from 'dead elements'. YOU are made from 'dead elements'.

So your basic claim is just wrong.

It would help; you to post some evidence if you understood what evidence is.

It is clear *you* don't know what it means to be evidence. That you can dismiss red-shifts as elements of the Big Bang is telling. That you think that the abundances of the light elements is not evidence for the Big Bang is telling.

Evidence consists of observations that help to select one hypothesis over another.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Thanks for the chemistry lesson, but it is irrelevant---lifeless elements can't be the source for life.

No element in the periodic table is alive. Yet DNA is made from just a few of those elements. So your claim is shown to be wrong.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Yes, those actually are all evidence for the Big Bang. In fact, they are very, very good evidence for it.

Do you really not understand that statements, no matter how dogmatic ARE NOT EVIDENCE? Do you really not understand that you must show HOW they prove the BB? No wonder you think evolution has been proved.

Oh my. Are you going to claim relativity is 'only a theory???? Seriously?

Oh my. it is not my label. I am just posting what others, including real scientists label it.

This is flat out wrong.

Do you really not understand statements no mate how dogmatic ARE NOT EVIDENCE? Why is it wrong.

First, DNA is a *chemical*. In and of itself, it is not alive. It can be analyzed in all the ways available to chemistry.

Second, DNA is made from atoms: carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, phosphorus, oxygen. These are the *elements* that form DNA.

NONE of these are alive. A carbon atom in DNA is exactly like every other carbon atom in the universe. It has the same properties and reacts in the same ways. The oxygen atoms in your DNA are not alive. They are exactly like the oxygen atoms in the air.

The point is that life *is* made of things that are not alive. The basic elements: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc are NOT alive. The DNA is NOT alive.

I am not sure that is known yet. It seems that anything that is self-replicating is life and is necessary for life to function must have lie in it.

What life *is* is a very complex collection of chemical reactions. There is no 'life force' that makes living things different chemically that anything else. What is different is the *arrangement* not the elements that compose living things.

Not only can life have its origin in 'dead elements', but life *today* is ultimately made from 'dead elements'. YOU are made from 'dead elements'.

All life is made up of dead elements. No element has what is necessary to produce for life. You can't mix any number of dead elements and get life. Life must come from outside.

So your basic claim is just wrong.

Do you really not understand that statements, no matter how dogmatic ARE NOT EVIDENCE?

It is clear *you* don't know what it means to be evidence.

If you think your dogmatic statements are evidence, i t is you who does not know what constitutes evidence. Let me give you an example---The TOE is not based on real science.

That you can dismiss red-shifts as elements of the Big Bang is telling. That you think that the abundances of the light elements is not evidence for the Big Bang is telling.

I have not dismissed it. I have ask you for the evidence that validates your statements.

Evidence consists of observations that help to select one hypothesis over another.

It takes more than observations. Red shifts and the universe expanding can be observed, but that in no way proves the BB. Again, you need to show HOW it proves the BB.

Your biggest problem is explaining where the matter and the energy originated to make a BB.

I have little hesitation in saying a sickly pall now hangs over the BB theory. When a pattern of facts become set against a theory, experience shows that the theory rarely recovers---Fred Hoyle.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Baha'is as you know believe Moses was a real person who was a Manifestation of God who guided the Hebrew peoples. His story like that of Noah and Adam are no doubt embellished with mythology. While miracles can happen and God Has the power to intervene in powerful ways, we have no actual objective historic evidence to methodically deconstruct the entire history of the Hebrew peoples and establish fact from fiction.
But we are deconstructing what so many Christians believe is real history. Many will say, "good". And, if Creation and the Flood is not the truth, then it is good. But, it completely annihilates Christianity. All of its beliefs will start to crumble. Jesus as God? Gone. Jesus, the only way? Gone. Dying for our sins? Gone. The whole foundation of Christianity starts with Genesis. with its "In the beginning God". We are taking jackhammers to it and poking holes into every thing they think is true. The question is... Are you sure you're right? Well, do ya?

Hey Adrian, how'd you like my Eastwood impression? Anyway, I'm going to go play guitar now. Something I doubt you have much time for these days. But, another thing, you probably have more in common with atheists on this thread than Christians. Isn't that a little odd to you?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I can't see any future in a theology that does not recognize an omnipotent God. It is a solid theology around the world who are well regarded in conservative theology. In time conservative Christianity will not change their belief in a literal creation.

Understanding the stories of the first nine chapters of Genesis allegorically does not in anyway undermine an omnipotent God. Just because God can do something, does not mean He will do it or has done it. So our belief in an Omnipotent God does not rely on a literal interpretation of Genesis and I do recall you acknowledged as much earlier in the thread.

In the opinion of the vast majority of scientists (and I hold several science degrees) evidence of the natural sciences overwhelmingly does not support a literal account of genesis.

Those who insist it is only figurative, don't have an omnipotent God. Their God is to small.

Many of your fellow believers in Christ do not believe this. It would be interesting to do a survey. I am certain that the majority of Christians in my country do not believe in a literal account of genesis.

The other consequence of holding onto outdated traditions is a movement away from Christianity. Many can no longer believe in what you believe as it is too implausible. I doubt if God would judge them harshly because of this. Next year in New Zealand's five year census the number of those without a religion is set to overtake the number who claim allegiance to Christianity.

Religion in New Zealand - Wikipedia

Here is an old bone we chewed on for awhile---I seen no future in a religion that rejects the LITERAL resurrection of Jesus, which is clearly taught in several passages in the Bible.

A literal resurrection of Jesus has similar problems to a literal interpretation of Genesis. I have demonstrated that even with an Omnipotent God, this narrative is highly implausible and needs to be abandoned. I know you don't agree and we both accept that neither of us is going to change the other's perspective.

Eventually the people vote with their feet. Time will tell which of us is correct.
 
Top