Creation According to Genesis

[Almajoya]

(For the record, I'm logging off now, not dodging replies. If this thread is still open tomorrow, I'll be back, and we can go at it some more.)

[Nercer -]

What's up with Genesis saying that birds came before other animals? Obviously, that's not right.

[Farnhamia]

What's up with Genesis saying that birds came before other animals? Obviously, that's not right.

Erm ... Genesis is a collection of myths and legends and not an evolutionary biology text? Might that not be it?

[Neo Art]

What's up with Genesis saying that birds came before other animals? Obviously, that's not right.

obvious NOW. Obvious 5,000 years ago? Not so much.

[Muravyets]

You would have to provide the same links, because Wikipedia is the only source that has such information. Am I right?

No, you're still being wrong. Let me clue you to how to use a Wiki reference. What you do is, you click on the article. Then you scroll down to the end of the article to see the reference links for the article. Then you click on those references. If they are authoritative, then you can use the Wiki article as an overview of the information. If they are not, then you dismiss the Wiki article as false or unsupported.

The links which have already been presented in this thread (not all of which have been from Wiki, by the way), are presenting information that ranks as common knowledge and which you yourself have already accepted the factuality of in your own statements.

So, on the grounds that the veracity of Wiki articles can be tested, and that the information in question is common knowledge, AND that you yourself have already accepted that information as fact, your dismissal of any and all Wiki links is just you being dishonest in an attempt to disqualify information that disproves your claims. And on the grounds that your dismissal of the provided links is dishonest on your part, I dismiss your demand that I should have to provide other links for the exact same information.

Ah, you're making the "the Bible is a work of fiction" argument. Why not provide some sources for that as well?

Because that's not what I said. If you don't get to demand that I support my argument by providing sources that have already been provided, you sure as shit don't get make up an argument, foist it onto me, and then demand that I provide sources to support it.

Ah, so you're suggesting that Jesus, John the Baptist, and the lot were RPing that they were the people mentioned in the earlier books. Or that the Bible is one big, long collaboration of fiction. I thought I told you that many of the books of the Bible were not personal accounts, but court records and geneologies (sp?), and are supported by records elsewhere. Coincidence? I think not.

Once again, not what I said. Also, now you're making another claim of fact -- court records? Really? There is a work of fiction being written here, but it's not the Bible.

There was a family whose house burned down one week. The pastor told their story to the congregation- how they had all made it out alive. This had the church praising God's Name- it was proof enough for them. If someone else chose to believe that there was another reason for their survival, that was up to him.

I'll make a note of that story for future reference if a day ever comes when it has any relevance to anything whatsoever.

I believe I provided a source for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
And a few more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/ ... n_bias.htm , http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflaw ... mation.htm , http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Confirmation_bias .

And as I said when you posted the first link the first time, it proves nothing. I refuse to tell you AGAIN why it proves nothing. Read the posts.

[Farnhamia]

What's up with Genesis saying that birds came before other animals? Obviously, that's not right.

obvious NOW. Obvious 5,000 years ago? Not so much.

Quite right.

The theist apologists often claim that there is scientific evidence backing up things in the Bible. Atheists dismiss those claims out of hand very often, which is sometimes a mistake. There are real people mentioned in the Bible, like the later kings of Israel and Judah. We know this because there is corroboration outside the Bible, such as Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions. There's actually a reference to the "House of David" in an inscription set up by a kind of Damascus in the 9th century BCE after he defeated the kings of Israel and Judah.

That said, one has to separate the historical material in the OT from the mythological. As Ira Gershwin wrote, "De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible, It ain't necessarily so."

[Flameswroth]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct. So, what is your take on what the hell it is talking about? How do you explain what each step of creation is talking about?

Try not to get too mean about criticism, of beliefs okay? Please?

When I believed that stuff, I was taught and adhered to the notion that it is indeed a literal account of the creation. The shortcomings in explanation and clarity were due to the limited understanding of Moses, who after all had the knowledge of a BC Egyptian Prince-turned-Levite Bedouin Prophet, exceptional as that may have been at his time. How does a man that long ago describe in words the creation of a universe/world/what-have-you?

Plenty of holes in this notion (ie, God could have just told him what to write verbatim so it was clear), but it worked for me at the time. Now it's just a cool story.

[Muravyets]

What's up with Genesis saying that birds came before other animals? Obviously, that's not right.

obvious NOW. Obvious 5,000 years ago? Not so much.

Quite right.

The theist apologists often claim that there is scientific evidence backing up things in the Bible. Atheists dismiss those claims out of hand very often, which is sometimes a mistake. There are real people mentioned in the Bible, like the later kings of Israel and Judah. We know this because there is corroboration outside the Bible, such as Egyptian, Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions. There's actually a reference to the "House of David" in an inscription set up by a kind of Damascus in the 9th century BCE after he defeated the kings of Israel and Judah.

That said, one has to separate the historical material in the OT from the mythological. As Ira Gershwin wrote, "De things dat yo' liable to read in de Bible, It ain't necessarily so."

This is what is often so frustrating in trying to debate with Bible literalists. They will point to something that IS true, such as the existence of this or that king or this or that battle, and claim that it somehow proves that everything in the Bible is also true. When you point out that they are making a leap that is not supportable, they just ignore that problem and carry on.

It is that last bit, about ignoring the unsupportable leap, that I am finding so frustrating in this thread.

[Neo Art]

This is what is often so frustrating in trying to debate with Bible literalists. They will point to something that IS true, such as the existence of this or that king or this or that battle, and claim that it somehow proves that everything in the Bible is also true. When you point out that they are making a leap that is not supportable, they just ignore that problem and carry on.

It is that last bit, about ignoring the unsupportable leap, that I am finding so frustrating in this thread.

I had this argument once, I asked him if he believed that Jesus had children. When he said no, and asked me why, I explained that heirs of Jesus was a central plotline in the novel The Davinci Code. A novel that had, as one of its major locations, the Louvre museum. And since the Louvre unquestionably exists (I've been there), the rest must be true.

[Farnhamia]

This is what is often so frustrating in trying to debate with Bible literalists. They will point to something that IS true, such as the existence of this or that king or this or that battle, and claim that it somehow proves that everything in the Bible is also true. When you point out that they are making a leap that is not supportable, they just ignore that problem and carry on.

It is that last bit, about ignoring the unsupportable leap, that I am finding so frustrating in this thread.

I had this argument once, I asked him if he believed that Jesus had children. When he said no, and asked me why, I explained that heirs of Jesus was a central plotline in the novel The Davinci Code. A novel that had, as one of its major locations, the Louvre museum. And since the Louvre unquestionably exists (I've been there), the rest must be true.

Those leaps aren't called "leaps of faith" for nothing, but it's only the authorized leaps that are acceptable. Neo's Louvre leap doesn't count but the leaps New Azura makes here are, even though the fulfillment by Jesus of the very vague OT prophecies were only documented after the fact by people with a vested interest in having them come true.

I don't know that you can convince a true believer to question his or her belief, nor is that necessarily the point. I think questioning the believers, requiring them to back up their statements or at least acknowledge that it is all based on faith, needs to be done so that other people, people who are unsure, will at least have some idea of what's being presented by the believers. Call it snake-oil, call it whatever, but at least call attention to it.

[Xsyne]

Indeed but I'm not a big fan of the assumption that just because it is the simplest explanation means it must be true.

Where did the universe come from?

Applying Occam's Razor, God is the simplest explanation doesn't mean it is true.

But where did it come from?

Logically speaking, god isn't the simplest explanation.

Why not?

Because it postulates an additional entity. Any materialistic explanation does not, and as such is automatically simpler than "God did it".

[Xsyne]

The people that wrote Genesis really thought that's what happened, because they lived in a highly superstitious age.

Given how our conception of "truth" is relatively new, and given that Genesis is written in the style of a just-so story, it is highly unlikely that the ancient Hebrews thought that the events in Genesis were what actually physically occurred.

[Muravyets]

This is what is often so frustrating in trying to debate with Bible literalists. They will point to something that IS true, such as the existence of this or that king or this or that battle, and claim that it somehow proves that everything in the Bible is also true. When you point out that they are making a leap that is not supportable, they just ignore that problem and carry on.

It is that last bit, about ignoring the unsupportable leap, that I am finding so frustrating in this thread.

I had this argument once, I asked him if he believed that Jesus had children. When he said no, and asked me why, I explained that heirs of Jesus was a central plotline in the novel The Davinci Code. A novel that had, as one of its major locations, the Louvre museum. And since the Louvre unquestionably exists (I've been there), the rest must be true.

Those leaps aren't called "leaps of faith" for nothing, but it's only the authorized leaps that are acceptable. Neo's Louvre leap doesn't count but the leaps New Azura makes here are, even though the fulfillment by Jesus of the very vague OT prophecies were only documented after the fact by people with a vested interest in having them come true.

I don't know that you can convince a true believer to question his or her belief, nor is that necessarily the point. I think questioning the believers, requiring them to back up their statements or at least acknowledge that it is all based on faith, needs to be done so that other people, people who are unsure, will at least have some idea of what's being presented by the believers. Call it snake-oil, call it whatever, but at least call attention to it.

I agree, but it is extremely frustrating to argue with people who do not deal in facts.

Unlike you and Neo, I do have religious beliefs. But I also know that there is no way I could ever prove my beliefs to be factually true to anyone but myself, so I don't try to. I don't come into NSG threads and try to convince people that there really are spirits animating all the stuff around them. What would be the point of making such an argument? When I am in the company of other animists and other people who have had similar experiences, we can sit around and discuss the spirits without any need to worry about proof or evidence because we are on the same page already. But outside that group -- please, it would be ludicrous to base any argument on an assertion of spirit activity to someone who has no knowledge of what I'm talking about nor any reason to believe me. And I restrain myself this way even though none of my beliefs contradicts science -- I still won't assert them as fact because I know I can't prove them to be fact.

There comes a point where you have to accept that, if you can't back up your claim, you should just not make the claim, regardless of whether you believe it or not. It's not doubting one's beliefs. It's knowing one's own limitations.

Bible literalists are unable to prove a single one of their claims about the Bible's literal factuality -- many of their claims are actually DIS-provable by existing facts -- yet they base all their arguments, even their politics, on that set of unsupportable assertions. And they get annoyed when people reject their arguments.

I just don't understand it. I can actually understand them believing things are facts when they clearly are not better than I can understand why they insist on arguing about them with unbelievers.

[Gift-of-god]

But there is energy?

There's positive mass energy negative gravitational energy. They exactly cancel out.

Don't you mean, 'if current theories are correct, then these energies should exactly cancel out'?

You speak as if it were fact, but since we can't observe the entire universe's energies, is it not a theory in the scientific sense?

The simplest explanation is not always the correct one, no matter what Occam would have you believe.

The simplest explanation at a given time may not be the correct one. In retrospect, it's quite often the simplest explanation that takes the cake.

I don't think that's true.

Occam's razor does not describe reality. It is not factual. It's just a way of organising theories, and is only applicable in situations where two or more theories are equally good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the OP, there is evidence that the authors of the New Testament did not take the Old Testament as factual truth about the natural world. In fact, the allegorical approach to biblical study is far more evident in the history of Xianity that the literalist approach.

[Almajoya]

You would have to provide the same links, because Wikipedia is the only source that has such information. Am I right?

No, you're still being wrong. Let me clue you to how to use a Wiki reference. What you do is, you click on the article. Then you scroll down to the end of the article to see the reference links for the article. Then you click on those references. If they are authoritative, then you can use the Wiki article as an overview of the information. If they are not, then you dismiss the Wiki article as false or unsupported.

The links which have already been presented in this thread (not all of which have been from Wiki, by the way), are presenting information that ranks as common knowledge and which you yourself have already accepted the factuality of in your own statements.

So, on the grounds that the veracity of Wiki articles can be tested, and that the information in question is common knowledge, AND that you yourself have already accepted that information as fact, your dismissal of any and all Wiki links is just you being dishonest in an attempt to disqualify information that disproves your claims. And on the grounds that your dismissal of the provided links is dishonest on your part, I dismiss your demand that I should have to provide other links for the exact same information.

I was being sarcastic, love. I advise you to learn the difference.

Ah, you're making the "the Bible is a work of fiction" argument. Why not provide some sources for that as well?

Because that's not what I said. If you don't get to demand that I support my argument by providing sources that have already been provided, you sure as shit don't get make up an argument, foist it onto me, and then demand that I provide sources to support it.

Actually, that's what you were getting at. You just don't have any sources to support it, because you are wrong.

Ah, so you're suggesting that Jesus, John the Baptist, and the lot were RPing that they were the people mentioned in the earlier books. Or that the Bible is one big, long collaboration of fiction. I thought I told you that many of the books of the Bible were not personal accounts, but court records and geneologies (sp?), and are supported by records elsewhere. Coincidence? I think not.

Once again, not what I said. Also, now you're making another claim of fact -- court records? Really? There is a work of fiction being written here, but it's not the Bible.

Yes, actually. If you read many of the books in the middle of the Old Testament- Kings, Chronicles, etc- you will note that they were written for the benefit of future governments. Looks to me, though, that your claim that the Bible is wrong is based on something you've heard other people say, and you've only read bits and pieces of the Bible.

There was a family whose house burned down one week. The pastor told their story to the congregation- how they had all made it out alive. This had the church praising God's Name- it was proof enough for them. If someone else chose to believe that there was another reason for their survival, that was up to him.

I'll make a note of that story for future reference if a day ever comes when it has any relevance to anything whatsoever.

You stated that another person's experiences cannot be proof for someone else. I told you this little story to illustrate why you are wrong, again.

I believe I provided a source for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
And a few more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/ ... n_bias.htm , http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalflaw ... mation.htm , http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Confirmation_bias .

And as I said when you posted the first link the first time, it proves nothing. I refuse to tell you AGAIN why it proves nothing. Read the posts.

I remember it well. You basically said that it means nothing because it meaning anything would destroy your argument. I advise you to quit while you're behind, before you fall even more behind.

[Flower Nazis]

Genesis is a bunch of bullshit.

[Muravyets]

The people that wrote Genesis really thought that's what happened, because they lived in a highly superstitious age.

Given how our conception of "truth" is relatively new, and given that Genesis is written in the style of a just-so story, it is highly unlikely that the ancient Hebrews thought that the events in Genesis were what actually physically occurred.

This ^^ is the point on which I get hung up. I personally think that the claim that the ancients believed the religious stories were literal fact is simplistic and self-serving, as well as unsupported, whether it is argued by Bible literalists or by denouncers of religious belief.

As I've said over and over, there is nothing in the historic record that tells us the peoples of the ancient world were literalists with regard to their religious stories. Such arguments are entirely made up out of speculation by the people presenting them, and they clearly serve no purpose but as a claim of validity for WHATEVER the person making the argument wants to assert.

Further, the stories work so much better as allegory and metaphor -- they reveal so much more "truth" as allegory and metaphor -- than they ever could as purported records of events, that I really fail to see any value in claiming them to be factual records at all. To me, literalist claims undermine the value of religion.

So on both the pro-religion side and the anti-religion side, I do not understand the obsession with applying literalism to the Bible.

[Farnhamia]

This is what is often so frustrating in trying to debate with Bible literalists. They will point to something that IS true, such as the existence of this or that king or this or that battle, and claim that it somehow proves that everything in the Bible is also true. When you point out that they are making a leap that is not supportable, they just ignore that problem and carry on.

It is that last bit, about ignoring the unsupportable leap, that I am finding so frustrating in this thread.

I had this argument once, I asked him if he believed that Jesus had children. When he said no, and asked me why, I explained that heirs of Jesus was a central plotline in the novel The Davinci Code. A novel that had, as one of its major locations, the Louvre museum. And since the Louvre unquestionably exists (I've been there), the rest must be true.

Those leaps aren't called "leaps of faith" for nothing, but it's only the authorized leaps that are acceptable. Neo's Louvre leap doesn't count but the leaps New Azura makes here are, even though the fulfillment by Jesus of the very vague OT prophecies were only documented after the fact by people with a vested interest in having them come true.

I don't know that you can convince a true believer to question his or her belief, nor is that necessarily the point. I think questioning the believers, requiring them to back up their statements or at least acknowledge that it is all based on faith, needs to be done so that other people, people who are unsure, will at least have some idea of what's being presented by the believers. Call it snake-oil, call it whatever, but at least call attention to it.

I agree, but it is extremely frustrating to argue with people who do not deal in facts.

Unlike you and Neo, I do have religious beliefs. But I also know that there is no way I could ever prove my beliefs to be factually true to anyone but myself, so I don't try to. I don't come into NSG threads and try to convince people that there really are spirits animating all the stuff around them. What would be the point of making such an argument? When I am in the company of other animists and other people who have had similar experiences, we can sit around and discuss the spirits without any need to worry about proof or evidence because we are on the same page already. But outside that group -- please, it would be ludicrous to base any argument on an assertion of spirit activity to someone who has no knowledge of what I'm talking about nor any reason to believe me. And I restrain myself this way even though none of my beliefs contradicts science -- I still won't assert them as fact because I know I can't prove them to be fact.

There comes a point where you have to accept that, if you can't back up your claim, you should just not make the claim, regardless of whether you believe it or not. It's not doubting one's beliefs. It's knowing one's own limitations.

Bible literalists are unable to prove a single one of their claims about the Bible's literal factuality -- many of their claims are actually DIS-provable by existing facts -- yet they base all their arguments, even their politics, on that set of unsupportable assertions. And they get annoyed when people reject their arguments.

I just don't understand it. I can actually understand them believing things are facts when they clearly are not better than I can understand why they insist on arguing about them with unbelievers.

*cursing the Interwebs and the Forum for throwing away my perfectly reasoned response*

I know, Mury, it is frustrating. You have to remember that when dealing with Christian believers, they argue from a position of absolute assurance in the correctness of their position. They KNOW they're right, even when you show them incontrovertably that they're wrong. You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.

[Muravyets]

I was being sarcastic, love. I advise you to learn the difference.

Oooh, you can pedal backwards!! Neato! Maybe you can get a good paying gig in a Russian circus with that trick.

Actually, that's what you were getting at. You just don't have any sources to support it, because you are wrong.

No, you. I absolutely stand by every word I have said in this thread, including the declaration that you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument because you can neither counter it nor pressure me into giving it up.

I said what I said I did, not what you claim or wish. The links that have been posted by other people support my argument and I refer all readers of my posts to them for supporting evidence of my statements. I maintain that the links are legitimate.

I can see that there is no further point in debating with you, as you are neither open to discussion nor honest in your approach to debate, so at this point I refer all readers who care to the record of the thread.

Yes, actually. If you read many of the books in the middle of the Old Testament- Kings, Chronicles, etc- you will note that they were written for the benefit of future governments. Looks to me, though, that your claim that the Bible is wrong is based on something you've heard other people say, and you've only read bits and pieces of the Bible.

Which as not one single thing to do with either the objection I raised or the question I asked. Just repeating variations of your original assertion is not going to hide the fact that you cannot defend your claims.

You claimed that the existence of later books of the Bible is proof of the factual truth of Genesis. You were challenged to justify that claim. You have failed.

You stated that another person's experiences cannot be proof for someone else. I told you this little story to illustrate why you are wrong, again.

Except, of course, that it illustrated no such thing. Rather, it clearly stated that the fact that some people believed God saved their church in no way proved it was so to anyone else. Your illustration of how I'm wrong "again" actually illustrated how I'm right, still.

I remember it well. You basically said that it means nothing because it meaning anything would destroy your argument.

And making up more bullshit that clearly does not match the content of the thread.

I advise you to quit while you're behind, before you fall even more behind.

Heal thyself.

[Muravyets]

*cursing the Interwebs and the Forum for throwing away my perfectly reasoned response*

I know, Mury, it is frustrating. You have to remember that when dealing with Christian believers, they argue from a position of absolute assurance in the correctness of their position. They KNOW they're right, even when you show them incontrovertably that they're wrong. You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.

Okay, just to be strict about it, this is true of ALL "true believers" whether they are Christians or anything else. Okay, now that's covered.

And you can tell when you are dealing with someone who, in my view, probably knows they are wrong, probably knows what they are claiming is true is actually not true, and who is pushing that view merely to serve some agenda or other, by how they conduct themselves in a debate. If they start the debate in the first place, if they are real bulldogs about never letting any part of the argument go, if their arguments become increasingly extreme, and if they quickly resort to insulting and belittling their opponents and engaging in other deflection tactics, all of that tells me that I'm not dealing with a person who is arguing in a purely honest and unvarnished manner.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

This ^^ is the point on which I get hung up. I personally think that the claim that the ancients believed the religious stories were literal fact is simplistic and self-serving, as well as unsupported, whether it is argued by Bible literalists or by denouncers of religious belief.

As I've said over and over, there is nothing in the historic record that tells us the peoples of the ancient world were literalists with regard to their religious stories. Such arguments are entirely made up out of speculation by the people presenting them, and they clearly serve no purpose but as a claim of validity for WHATEVER the person making the argument wants to assert.

Further, the stories work so much better as allegory and metaphor -- they reveal so much more "truth" as allegory and metaphor -- than they ever could as purported records of events, that I really fail to see any value in claiming them to be factual records at all. To me, literalist claims undermine the value of religion.

So on both the pro-religion side and the anti-religion side, I do not understand the obsession with applying literalism to the Bible.

So, the good old "If it sounds absurd and it's in the Bible, it's symbolic." argument. Okay, what are the two contradictory stories of creation symbolic of?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Don't you mean, 'if current theories are correct, then these energies should exactly cancel out'?

You speak as if it were fact, but since we can't observe the entire universe's energies, is it not a theory in the scientific sense?

Cuz' the conservation of energy is on such shaky ground. Do you even have a clue as to how hard it would be to break energy conservation? If anything can be said to be a fact, then energy conservation is. If energy conservation is not a fact, then nothing is.

Also, you're confusing the definition of theory and fact.

[Xsyne]

So, the good old "If it sounds absurd and it's in the Bible, it's symbolic." argument. Okay, what are the two contradictory stories of creation symbolic of?

Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world as a whole by the Elohim. Genesis 2 describes the particular creations of the god of the Hebrews. At the time that the Genesis story would have originated, the ancient Hebrews were henotheists.

[Grave_n_idle]

Back when Genesis was written, it was believed to be the true and literal story of creation for many millions of people. Any more questions?

Unlikely.

I doubt if it was even read by 'millions' of people.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Genesis 1 describes the creation of the world as a whole by the Elohim. Genesis 2 describes the particular creations of the god of the Hebrews. At the time that the Genesis story would have originated, the ancient Hebrews were henotheists.

So why do they contradict and say that different things were made at different times?