Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 1:12 AM
343 online now:
Coyote, edge, Faith (3 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,195 Year: 23,801/21,208 Month: 1,766/2,468 Week: 275/822 Day: 1/67 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Author Topic:   Contradictions: Hint that Genesis 1 and 2 are Allegorical
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 262 days)
Posts: 9068
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 31 of 100 (737719)
09-28-2014 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by PaulGL
09-28-2014 5:38 PM


you are replying to a thread that is 11 years old.
"PaulGL" writes:

Any apparent discrepancy is due to one of three things: A. Unjustified, inductive extrapolations of scientific findings. B. Incorrect, dogmatic (present on both sides of the E. vs. C. issue) interpretations of either secular or scriptural evidence.

actually, you will find that it is the apologetic interpretations that are incorrect and dogmatic. they seek to justify science and the bible against each other.

the person (or more likely, committee) that wrote genesis 1 had no knowledge of the universe in modern scientific ways, and this much is evident from the writing alone. they get the most fundamental basic descriptions of cosmology incorrect, from the very beginning. they describe a primordial chaos consisting of water, out of which a flat earth and a solid domed heaven are made. these are not meant to be allegorical; they aren't symbolic of anything. they are plain descriptions of the way that every ancient near eastern person thought of the universe in the bronze and iron ages, consistent across many cultures.

genesis 1 serves primarily two functions:

  1. as an etiology for the practice of shabbat, and
  2. to erase J's earlier creation myth which was deemed heretical
we know about the earlier version because part of it is still present in genesis (chapters 2-4), and because other books (psalm 74, job) reference events that seem to be from the missing section, which are (again) concordant with other ancient near eastern mythology.

J's version seems to have been heretical in its assertions that yahweh had an opponent he had to defeat at the dawn of time, in the dragon leviathan (and perhaps, as in the baal cycle, the dragon first defeated him), and in the assertions that yahweh lied, and that yahweh's creation was flawed. the P version, found in genesis 1, and cutting right to genesis 5, skips all of the strife found in J. and the places where they overlap highlight the differences very strongly:

instead of man being created alone, and that being "not good", and yahweh failing to make man a mate, and then the woman being portrayed as better than the man in some ways and punished to subservience, they are created side-by-side. instead of stealing "knowledge" (which has definite sexual connotations in biblical hebrew), they are commanded to procreate. instead of a murdered son and an exiled son, and a third son to replace those two, P skips right to seth. so too P glosses over the parts we know about the missing section. dragons are mentioned in verse 21, but there is no battle.

the second major concern is the etiological function of genesis 1. it is not so much about creation of the world, as it is about the demarcation of time. it is the etiology for night and day (in that order, comprising the jewish day which begins at sundown), it is the etiology for the week, and it is the etiology for shabbat. those etiologies make zero sense if they are using the words differently than they are clearly defining them. shabbat was a relatively new practice that P was concerned with more than some other sources were. P is also the timekeeper of the torah; the authors of all the genealogies. so genesis 1 is about time. playing fast and loose with the time is to have completely missed the point.

but these are things you have to actually study the text, and the texts of the surrounding nations, to understand.

C. Lack of evidence in critical, specific areas for the purpose of preserving free will. Example: IF science ascertained factually that there was no fossil record prior to 6,000 years ago (i. e.: Adam and Eve, the human race magically and instantaneously appeared) don't you realize that this would be such prima facie evidence of direct Divine intervention that it would interfere with free will?

no, doesn't follow.

there is plenty of evidence for evolution, common ancestry, an old earth, global climate change, that we went to the moon, the holocaust, etc. yet there are people who deny all those things. evidence of divine intervention would simply be evidence of divine intervention, and would not invalidate free will. if free will is even a thing to begin with.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by PaulGL, posted 09-28-2014 5:38 PM PaulGL has not yet responded

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 983 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 32 of 100 (737956)
10-02-2014 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peter
04-24-2003 6:02 AM


The original texts do not come from clans. They come from civilizations and empires.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 04-24-2003 6:02 AM Peter has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2014 10:43 AM djufo has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11701
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 33 of 100 (737993)
10-03-2014 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:07 PM


The original texts do not come from clans. They come from civilizations and empires.

As you said in Message 38, prove it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:07 PM djufo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 983 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 34 of 100 (738036)
10-04-2014 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by New Cat's Eye
10-03-2014 10:43 AM


I am surprised by your lack of knowledge. The original historical data we have of our origins comes from the Sumerian civilization. Later inherited by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians and so on. On the other hand, interestingly enough, the pseudo scientific fictional theory of human evolution does come from a clan or a group of followers with a specific agenda.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-03-2014 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Capt Stormfield, posted 10-04-2014 11:49 AM djufo has not yet responded
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2014 12:20 PM djufo has responded

    
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 247
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 35 of 100 (738039)
10-04-2014 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by djufo
10-04-2014 11:35 AM


The original historical data we have of our origins...

I suppose, if you equivocate the meaning of "data" and "origins".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 11:35 AM djufo has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11701
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 36 of 100 (738042)
10-04-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by djufo
10-04-2014 11:35 AM


I am surprised by your lack of knowledge.

Whuh? You don't know me. We all lack knowledge of many things.

Why would you be surprised by a random person's ignorance of some thing?

Unless you were just acting like a jerk?

The original historical data we have of our origins comes from the Sumerian civilization. Later inherited by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians and so on.

Oh, that's what you were talking about. You just posted a short little one-liner response to an 11 year old post. I didn't really think you were replying within the context of that thread, but still, its hard to tell what someone is talking about from just 14 words.

I was way off with what I thought you were referring to as the "original texts".

On the other hand, interestingly enough, the pseudo scientific fictional theory of human evolution does come from a clan or a group of followers with a specific agenda.

What does that have to do with this?

Surely you're not trying to bait me?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 11:35 AM djufo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
djufo
Member (Idle past 983 days)
Posts: 55
From: FL
Joined: 10-02-2014


Message 37 of 100 (738054)
10-04-2014 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
10-04-2014 12:20 PM


Yes I was referring to the original writings coming from ancient times. No I'm not trying to bait you, my comment about the "scientific" community was generalized. My whole reply did contain a degree of jerk due to yours in your previous reply. No feelings though.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2014 12:20 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Pressie, posted 10-05-2014 9:15 AM djufo has not yet responded
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2014 9:23 AM djufo has not yet responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1771
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 38 of 100 (738140)
10-05-2014 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by djufo
10-04-2014 3:06 PM


How on earth do you generalise the scientific community?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 3:06 PM djufo has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11701
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 39 of 100 (738202)
10-06-2014 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by djufo
10-04-2014 3:06 PM


Yes I was referring to the original (Sumerian) writings coming from ancient times.

Can you see why someone might be confused when you come in and reply to a post, that is over 10 years old, that is talking about the books of Genesis in the Bible and when you refer to the "original writings" you are not talking about the Bible at all but instead are talking about some other, practically unrelated, ancient civilization?

You didn't even hint at the fact that you were not referring to the Bible at all.

Replies are tied to other messages and we typically stay within the context of those messages. To suddenly change to something completely different, with no mention of it to your audience, is only going to cause problems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 3:06 PM djufo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by deerbreh, posted 11-24-2014 2:33 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 40 of 100 (742766)
11-24-2014 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2014 9:23 AM


Can you see why someone might be confused when you come in and reply to a post, that is over 10 years old, that is talking about the books of Genesis in the Bible and when you refer to the "original writings" you are not talking about the Bible at all but instead are talking about some other (Sumerian), practically unrelated, ancient civilization?

Well, in fact there is evidence of borrowing of themes from other creation accounts, particularly Mesopotamian, which includes Sumerian. The difference is that the Hebrews modified the accounts to change them from polytheistic to monotheistic. You can choose not to believe that, but it is probably the prevailing hypothesis of the majority of OT scholars. The reason for the differences in the two accounts is that they have different authors/sources - Genesis 1:12:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:424 is Jahwistic. The two accounts were actually written in reverse order, i.e., the Jahwist account was written first, and the Priestley account written later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2014 9:23 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2014 2:58 PM deerbreh has not yet responded
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 11-24-2014 3:06 PM deerbreh has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11701
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 41 of 100 (742769)
11-24-2014 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by deerbreh
11-24-2014 2:33 PM


Well, in fact there is evidence of borrowing of themes from other creation accounts, particularly Mesopotamian, which includes Sumerian.

Sure, like the great deluge in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The difference is that the Hebrews modified the accounts to change them from polytheistic to monotheistic.

Meh, I wouldn't ascribe so much intention to that action, and especially not to them in general as a group.

I consider it more of an unintentional cultural evolution. And they went from polytheism, through henotheism, and then onto monotheism. So it wasn't really a "Hey guys, let's change all this stuff to be talking about one god", its was more of a gradual cultural change across generations.

The reason for the differences in the two accounts is that they have different authors/sources - Genesis 1:12:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:424 is Jahwistic. The two accounts were actually written in reverse order, i.e., the Jahwist account was written first, and the Priestley account written later.

Indeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by deerbreh, posted 11-24-2014 2:33 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26288
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 100 (742771)
11-24-2014 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by deerbreh
11-24-2014 2:33 PM


The traditional Christian understanding of the Bible, that goes back to Jesus and even to Moses, is that the Bible gives the true version of the stories that also ended up in the lore of other cultures. It's not that the others are original, they are simply what was picked up by people in various distorted versions from their ancestors on the ark, but since God inspired the Bible we get the true story there. Unbelievers generally prefer the fictional account of course.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by deerbreh, posted 11-24-2014 2:33 PM deerbreh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 11-24-2014 3:42 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 45 by deerbreh, posted 11-24-2014 3:54 PM Faith has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 43 of 100 (742773)
11-24-2014 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
11-24-2014 3:06 PM


There is certainly a possibility that Jesus considered the stories found in the Torah as historical but it really is unlikely. But regardless, we know for a fact that whether or not Jesus believed things like either of the Biblical Flood myths or the Exodus or the Conquest of Canaan or Genesis 1 or Genesis 2&3 as being factual, they were not. If Jesus did believe they actually happened then Jesus was simply wrong. We've learned quite a bit more than Jesus could have possibly know.

No one questions that people have in the past though such stories were factual but for at least the last couple hundred years it has required willful ignorance, delusion or deceit to do so.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 11-24-2014 3:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Phat, posted 11-24-2014 3:52 PM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9745
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 44 of 100 (742774)
11-24-2014 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
11-24-2014 3:42 PM


jar writes:

Jesus was simply wrong. We've learned quite a bit more than Jesus could have possibly known

Its sad that you state this so casually.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 11-24-2014 3:42 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 11-24-2014 4:14 PM Phat has responded
 Message 50 by Theodoric, posted 11-24-2014 5:11 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 422 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 45 of 100 (742775)
11-24-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
11-24-2014 3:06 PM


It's not that the others are original, they are simply what was picked up by people in various distorted versions from their ancestors on the ark, but since God inspired the Bible we get the true story there.

Well that is an awkward view, given that the Hebrew version was written well AFTER the other ancient versions. But I suppose it Could Have happened that way, God COULD HAVE dictated the correct version to the HEBREWS and NO ONE ELSE. And Noah COULD HAVE taken baby dinosaurs onto the ark. And it COULD HAVE rained for 40 days and 40 nights over the whole earth at once even though that defies everything we know about physical science. And there COULD HAVE been hyper evolution to generate all the different species from the different kinds on the ark. And there Could Have been hyper laying down of sediments, rock formation and subsequent hyper erosion for the Colorado River to cut out the Grand Canyon. Oh never mind. If you are going to invoke miracles every time you turn around, there is no end to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 11-24-2014 3:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 11-24-2014 4:45 PM deerbreh has responded

  
Prev12
3
4567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017