Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 231 (616460)
05-22-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 11:28 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
bluescat48 writes:
of course, the stories it is based on might
That is what I was implying.
None of that supports the hypothesis or "extrapolation" that the original stories said that "round things" rather than lights were created on day four.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 11:28 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 5:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 107 of 231 (616472)
05-22-2011 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by NoNukes
05-22-2011 2:32 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
It doesn't even support a day 4 or day anything else. All that can be said is that when these stories were compiled, it said "whatever."
It gets back to the fact that no one knows what the original story was or when it was first told or by whom. All one has, in the case of Gen:1, is the compilation, done somewhere in middle of the first millenium BCE.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2011 2:32 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by arachnophilia, posted 05-22-2011 10:48 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 108 of 231 (616499)
05-22-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 5:09 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
bluescat48 writes:
It doesn't even support a day 4 or day anything else. All that can be said is that when these stories were compiled, it said "whatever."
It gets back to the fact that no one knows what the original story was or when it was first told or by whom. All one has, in the case of Gen:1, is the compilation, done somewhere in middle of the first millenium BCE.
no, as pointed out to you repeatedly, you wouldn't recognize the story as genesis. this isn't a baseless claim we are assuming -- we actually have the stories genesis 1 was based upon. they can be found in babylonian mythology.
you guys seems to want to instill a little a bit of doubt -- like it was the same story, in a different language, and some details got bungled up. this is wishful thinking, and special pleading for your particular ideology. the truth is that, yes, it was a different language. and a completely different story, too. it's not one word changed here or there. it's pretty much everything.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 5:09 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 11:46 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 112 by granpa, posted 05-23-2011 10:04 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 109 of 231 (616509)
05-22-2011 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by arachnophilia
05-22-2011 10:48 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
Even so, how do you know that the Babylonians didn't take these stories from the Akkadians or Sumerians or even from early Canaanites?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by arachnophilia, posted 05-22-2011 10:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2011 1:15 AM bluescat48 has replied
 Message 111 by jar, posted 05-23-2011 9:06 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 110 of 231 (616519)
05-23-2011 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 11:46 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
bluescat48 writes:
Even so, how do you know that the Babylonians didn't take these stories from the Akkadians or Sumerians or even from early Canaanites?
they almost certainly did. the point is that the disconnect between genesis and its babylonian influences is so great that genesis 1 constitutes a new work, and not simply an adaptation or translation. genesis 1 was written late into the biblical period, in hebrew. the story did not exist in any culture before that point.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 11:46 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by bluescat48, posted 05-23-2011 10:45 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 111 of 231 (616555)
05-23-2011 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by bluescat48
05-22-2011 11:46 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
The period in the second half of 600BCE in Judah under King Josiah was one of great reform and a major revision of the descriptions of the Jewish God specifically to purge other gods and establish a distinctly different "Hebrew God". It was when Genesis 1 and Deuteronomy were written and leading to the still later writing of Leviticus that sets out the ritual and holiness codes.
It's a revision of YHWH from the older mighty human character to an overarching supreme, aloof and somewhat distant character.
Both of these were new constructs, a new defining of God, the Priesthood and man and a redefining of the relationships between each.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by bluescat48, posted 05-22-2011 11:46 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 112 of 231 (616561)
05-23-2011 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by arachnophilia
05-22-2011 10:48 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
quote:
this isn't a baseless claim we are assuming -- we actually have the stories genesis 1 was based upon. they can be found in babylonian mythology.
correlation is not causation. even if you can establish a connection between genesis and Babylonian mythology you cant tell which one is based on which.
It may well be that Babylonian mythology is based on a much older oral tradition of genesis (which we already hypothesized to explain how 'sun, moon, and stars' become 'round things').
You start with a preconceived idea and then interpret all evidence to support that idea then declare that you have 'scientifically' proven that the bible is wrong. typical.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by arachnophilia, posted 05-22-2011 10:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2011 10:51 PM granpa has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 113 of 231 (616569)
05-23-2011 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by arachnophilia
05-23-2011 1:15 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
they almost certainly did. the point is that the disconnect between genesis and its babylonian influences is so great that genesis 1 constitutes a new work, and not simply an adaptation or translation. genesis 1 was written late into the biblical period, in hebrew. the story did not exist in any culture before that point.
I am not trying to deny that, and I agree with you.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2011 1:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 114 of 231 (616679)
05-23-2011 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by granpa
05-23-2011 10:04 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:
even if you can establish a connection between genesis and Babylonian mythology you cant tell which one is based on which.
...yes. we can. i like how fundamentalists enjoy asserting how "we can't know anything!" and quickly follow it up with "therefore, we know this!" pick one.
It may well be that Babylonian mythology is based on a much older oral tradition of genesis (which we already hypothesized to explain how 'sun, moon, and stars' become 'round things').
nope. see, there are these things called "literary analysis" and "history" and "language studies" and "archaeology". in this case, the babylonian stories happen to be older than the hebrew people. you can't just assume that your creation myth goes back a long time (with some creative changes you've pulled out of thin air) simply because it's convenient for your particular ideology. that claim has to be based on something. and in this case, all evidence points to genesis 1 being a very, very new composition showing strong babylonian influence.
You start with a preconceived idea and then interpret all evidence to support that idea then declare that you have 'scientifically' proven that the bible is wrong.
typical
no, that's exactly what you are doing. that the bible is "wrong" is not my conclusion, nor is it what i have been discussing. rather, it is what you have assumed (by saying it really meant something else originally). what i have done is looked at the text, and its relationship to texts from neighbouring societies.
i'm sorry that the facts do not support your conclusion. that is not my problem, or evidence of me being biased. rather, it is evidence of your bias.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by granpa, posted 05-23-2011 10:04 AM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:00 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 115 of 231 (616735)
05-24-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by arachnophilia
05-23-2011 10:51 PM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
"literary analysis"?
how are you going to analyze the oral tradition when we dont even know what language it was in?
It may even be a dead language

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 05-23-2011 10:51 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 10:24 AM granpa has replied
 Message 118 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 10:37 AM granpa has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 231 (616742)
05-24-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by granpa
05-24-2011 10:00 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
"literary analysis"?
how are you going to analyze the oral tradition when we dont even know what language it was in?
Because the people carved the stories into stone tablets centuries before the hebrews even existed.
Have you read about the Epic of Gilgamesh? <-- clicky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:00 AM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 117 of 231 (616746)
05-24-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by New Cat's Eye
05-24-2011 10:24 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
if they carved it into stone then it wasnt oral tradition was it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 10:24 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM granpa has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 118 of 231 (616748)
05-24-2011 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by granpa
05-24-2011 10:00 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:
"literary analysis"?
how are you going to analyze the oral tradition when we dont even know what language it was in?
It may even be a dead language
We are not analyzing the oral tradition; we are analyzing the WRITTEN work, and Genesis 1 as well as Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written thousands of years after any oral tradition. They are post-exile writings created during the reformation in Judah in the second half of the 6th Century BCE and the first half of the 5th Century BCE.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:00 AM granpa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:46 AM jar has replied

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 2341 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 119 of 231 (616751)
05-24-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by jar
05-24-2011 10:37 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
"we" were discussing post 90.
the hebrew written version of genesis may indeed have been influenced by babylonian mythology but I suggested in post 90 that both were influenced by a much earlier (and much more accurate) preflood and prebabel oral tradition. I also suggested that the language may now be dead.
Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 10:37 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 05-24-2011 11:00 AM granpa has not replied
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 05-24-2011 11:01 AM granpa has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 120 of 231 (616755)
05-24-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by granpa
05-24-2011 10:46 AM


Re: you're going to have to "Stuudy Genesis" even more than that.
granpa writes:
"we" were discussing post 90.
the hebrew written version of genesis may indeed have been influenced by babylonian mythology but I suggested in post 90 that both were influenced by a much earlier (and much more accurate) preflood and prebabel oral tradition. I also suggested that the language may now be dead.
Yes, I understand that is what you are claiming.
However the Genesis 1 story as well as Deuteronomy and Leviticus are relatively modern creations designed to establish a unique Hebrew theology.
There was no Biblical Flood. Never happened.
There was no Tower of Babel as described in the story. Never happened.
Genesis 1, Deuteronomy and Leviticus were written during the purge of other religions and gods and the reformation initiated under King Josiah of Judah. The whole goal of that reformation was to create a new and unique Hebrew people that was different from what they had experienced either during the exile or during the preceding years post exile.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by granpa, posted 05-24-2011 10:46 AM granpa has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Eliyahu, posted 02-21-2014 7:35 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024