Creation According to Genesis

[Barringtonia]

That is very true, but it also has does not tell us how the original audiences received the story/stories -- as reportage or as art.

I would imagine it was in the form of a sort of play, a ritual re-telling of the story that partly served to bind a community together through history.

It's interesting to see how the landscape impacts on a creation story, the difference between, say, Australian aborigine and Vietnamese, one focused around earth and the other focused around water.

While watching a water play in Hanoi, I was transported back to imagining a community, where Uncle Nyet always plays the water dragon, where people remember Grandpa's amazing portrayal of the hero...

Etc., etc., good times.

[Ashmoria]

no, its not meant to be taken literally.

How do you know that? People of that time took far more bizarre crap than Genesis to be true.

well it IS the explanation of how the world came to be. and of course in the absense of better explanations people went with the one from the bible. but that doesnt mean that it was written with a scientific sensibility--since when it was written there was no scientific sensibility. so in that way it was not claiming to be taken as literally true.

[Scotus Anonymous]

Genesis is a rewrite of older myth.

So it's a reboot.

Had to be done.

...coming this Holiday season... (open soundtrack by Danny Elfman)

...in a world...where there...well, isn't a world yet...one man...will risk it all!

(enter some "hot" new actor, maybe the guy from Twilight or something, being chased through the jungle by unknown threat, lots of fast cutaways)

Adam: "God, I'm lonely"

(enter God, played by Anthony Hopkins)

God: Don't! Don't touch the tre- (Blam, explosions, fire, slo-mo plummeting)

(enter Eve, played by Anne Hathaway or Miley Cyrus or something)

Eve: Wait...I'm going to what once a month?

COMING THIS WINTER...TO A THEATER NEAR YOU...

GENESIS BEGINS.

This film is not yet blessed.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

well it IS the explanation of how the world came to be. and of course in the absense of better explanations people went with the one from the bible. but that doesnt mean that it was written with a scientific sensibility--since when it was written there was no scientific sensibility. so in that way it was not claiming to be taken as literally true.

By that logic we can say that the bible is only being metaphorical when it says that "god exists."

[Muravyets]

How do you know? Unless you are immortal, you have absolutely no way to judge how people thought of such myths at the time they were current. You are just making this claim up.

If you want to go that far, I really don't know that you actually believe in animism. You say you do, but what if you're lying?

What if the Hebrews were lying about writing Genesis?

UT:

I have actually claimed to believe in animism here in this very forum, many times.

Go ahead and show us any ancient source stating for any kind of record whatsoever that people in the ancient world believed their various creation myths were literally true.

You can state "Muravyets believes in animism" because Muravyets has said she believes in animism. If there is no source saying that ancient people believed as you say they did, then your claim is a fiction.

I'll wait for your evidence in support of your claim -- but I won't hold my breath.

[Almajoya]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

[Maurepas]

well it IS the explanation of how the world came to be. and of course in the absense of better explanations people went with the one from the bible. but that doesnt mean that it was written with a scientific sensibility--since when it was written there was no scientific sensibility. so in that way it was not claiming to be taken as literally true.

By that logic we can say that the bible is only being metaphorical when it says that "god exists."

By some logic you can say almost anything about the Bible...and people did, have, and are,

[Ashmoria]

well it IS the explanation of how the world came to be. and of course in the absense of better explanations people went with the one from the bible. but that doesnt mean that it was written with a scientific sensibility--since when it was written there was no scientific sensibility. so in that way it was not claiming to be taken as literally true.

By that logic we can say that the bible is only being metaphorical when it says that "god exists."

and it is.

in that "god" is far more than the strange being described in the bible, especially in the old testament.

[Ashmoria]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

because its obviously not "true".

[Muravyets]

That is very true, but it also has does not tell us how the original audiences received the story/stories -- as reportage or as art.

I would imagine it was in the form of a sort of play, a ritual re-telling of the story that partly served to bind a community together through history.

It's interesting to see how the landscape impacts on a creation story, the difference between, say, Australian aborigine and Vietnamese, one focused around earth and the other focused around water.

While watching a water play in Hanoi, I was transported back to imagining a community, where Uncle Nyet always plays the water dragon, where people remember Grandpa's amazing portrayal of the hero...

Etc., etc., good times.

Yes, but that still doesn't tell us that people think the creation myths are literally true, as opposed to, oh say, allegory or metaphor.

[Maurepas]

You can state "Muravyets believes in animism" because Muravyets has said she believes in animism.

Which one of you is Muravyets, and who is that other person?

[Maurepas]

That is very true, but it also has does not tell us how the original audiences received the story/stories -- as reportage or as art.

I would imagine it was in the form of a sort of play, a ritual re-telling of the story that partly served to bind a community together through history.

It's interesting to see how the landscape impacts on a creation story, the difference between, say, Australian aborigine and Vietnamese, one focused around earth and the other focused around water.

While watching a water play in Hanoi, I was transported back to imagining a community, where Uncle Nyet always plays the water dragon, where people remember Grandpa's amazing portrayal of the hero...

Etc., etc., good times.

That would be my view as well, although, I am generally of the opinion that the "government" of those peoples were more involved than that would imply, but, thats simply based off of my observations of religions in general..

[Almajoya]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

because its obviously not "true".

Do you have a source, or scientific reason, to back this up? Or is this just your belief?

[Muravyets]

well it IS the explanation of how the world came to be. and of course in the absense of better explanations people went with the one from the bible. but that doesnt mean that it was written with a scientific sensibility--since when it was written there was no scientific sensibility. so in that way it was not claiming to be taken as literally true.

By that logic we can say that the bible is only being metaphorical when it says that "god exists."

That's true, you can.

[Maurepas]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

because its obviously not "true".

Do you have a source, or scientific reason, to back this up? Or is this just your belief?

[Tunizcha]

You can state "Muravyets believes in animism" because Muravyets has said she believes in animism.

Which one of you is Muravyets, and who is that other person?

I think it's one of those A=A things.

[Muravyets]

You can state "Muravyets believes in animism" because Muravyets has said she believes in animism.

Which one of you is Muravyets, and who is that other person?

I have an evil twin who uses the same name and ruins my reputation. Most vexing, let me tell you.

[Sonnveld]

Just wanted to pop in and uphold the point that Genesis was and is a metaphor-rich allegory. It was not meant to be read literally.

Sorry if I came across as bluntly pat up there, but here in America, you'd be surprised how many people think the whole damn Bible is a razor-edged, black-and-white chronicle. Or maybe you wouldn't be surprised. Normally I wouldn't worry overmuch but the people who think the Bible is a documentary, including Genesis and Revelations (especially!) are only one click to the side of the guys blowing themselves up in the Middle East.

[Almajoya]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

because its obviously not "true".

Do you have a source, or scientific reason, to back this up? Or is this just your belief?

Actually, I have no problem with this. O:)

Still waiting on that source.

[Muravyets]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

Hm...given the falsely limited choice between those two equally unrealistic options...I'll pick the accident just to show it's as easy to believe that as it is to believe the other.

[Ashmoria]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

because its obviously not "true".

Do you have a source, or scientific reason, to back this up? Or is this just your belief?

huh?

have you read the sequence of events in genesis? its impossible to be true.

[Barringtonia]

That is very true, but it also has does not tell us how the original audiences received the story/stories -- as reportage or as art.

I would imagine it was in the form of a sort of play, a ritual re-telling of the story that partly served to bind a community together through history.

It's interesting to see how the landscape impacts on a creation story, the difference between, say, Australian aborigine and Vietnamese, one focused around earth and the other focused around water.

While watching a water play in Hanoi, I was transported back to imagining a community, where Uncle Nyet always plays the water dragon, where people remember Grandpa's amazing portrayal of the hero...

Etc., etc., good times.

Yes, but that still doesn't tell us that people think the creation myths are literally true, as opposed to, oh say, allegory or metaphor.

One cannot say definitively, the issue is when the ritual became more important than the community binding.

I suspect it fluctuated, that disaster in the form of famine or war concretized the 'consequence' of straying from tradition.

[Almajoya]

Just wanted to pop in and uphold the point that Genesis was and is a metaphor-rich allegory. It was not meant to be read literally.

Don't think so, guy. Or are you suggesting that millennia of worshippers have been wrong?

Read Revelations, and then read Genesis. One is chock-full of metaphors. The other is quite literal.

[Muravyets]

Just wanted to pop in and uphold the point that Genesis was and is a metaphor-rich allegory. It was not meant to be read literally.

Sorry if I came across as bluntly pat up there, but here in America, you'd be surprised how many people think the whole damn Bible is a razor-edged, black-and-white chronicle. Or maybe you wouldn't be surprised. Normally I wouldn't worry overmuch but the people who think the Bible is a documentary, including Genesis and Revelations (especially!) are only one click to the side of the guys blowing themselves up in the Middle East.

I agree on pretty much all points.

[Almajoya]

Obviously, Genesis is not literal, or correct.

Why not? I don't see what the problem is with an omnipotent being creating the universe in six days (on the seventh, He rested). Or would you rather believe that all this is a happy coincidence, and could fall apart at any moment?

because its obviously not "true".

Do you have a source, or scientific reason, to back this up? Or is this just your belief?

huh?

have you read the sequence of events in genesis? its impossible to be true.

I have read them several times. I find them fascinating.

It's no more impossible than a spontaneous Big Bang.

Still waiting....