Creation According to Genesis

[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.

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.

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.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

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.

1) They wrote about these beliefs.

2) There is historical evidence for various martyrs that died for such beliefs.

3) We know that people in the Middle Ages believed incredibly ridiculous things, because they actually based many documented behaviors (like medical practices) on such beliefs.

4) We know that the majority of people alive today hold rather unscientific and irrational beliefs.

5) Therefore, it stands to reason that, in a time completely devoid of science, there were plenty of highly absurd beliefs, especially when we consider that, even today when people really should know better, things like creationism and astrology still have very large followings.

6) We can then say that, given the fact that there were almost assuredly plenty of cracked-out ideas running around, the idea that the people who told the oral tradition of Genesis believed it themselves is not too far out there. Also, even if they didn't believe it, the fact that we have huge numbers of creationists NOW shows that it is extremely likely that at least a good chunk of the Jewish common folk thought Genesis was literally true.

7) If you read some of the gospels, whenever he discusses them, Jesus always talks as if the events of Genesis really happened, and never speaks of them as if they were stories. This shows that the authors of the gospels, who weren't exactly far removed from the Christians of the 100's era, also thought both that:

A) The stories in Genesis are literally true.

and

B) The stories in Genesis are meant to be taken as literal truth.

[Muravyets]

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

Still waiting on that source.

Are you one of those Young Earthers who dismiss the entire fossil record and carbon dating as either fakes or tricks by Satan? Because the source that shows that Genesis is not "true" in the sense of "factual" is the fossil and geological record attesting to the age of the Earth.

[Almajoya]

*snip last post*

Beautifully done.

[Maurepas]

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

Still waiting on that source.

Snakes dont talk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes

Humanity didnt develop from just two people in a Garden, nor is it possible to grow one from a Rib, or dirt :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


The Earth took much, much longer to develop than 6 days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The Sun came before Plants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants

etc., etc., enjoy,

[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.

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.

Okay, B, seriously now -- what part of anything you've been saying has, in your mind, fuck-all to do with the earlier assertions that people believed the creation myths to be literally and actually true?

[Almajoya]

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

Still waiting on that source.

Are you one of those Young Earthers who dismiss the entire fossil record and carbon dating as either fakes or tricks by Satan? Because the source that shows that Genesis is not "true" in the sense of "factual" is the fossil and geological record attesting to the age of the Earth.

I am not. I believe that there were dinosaurs and such. I haven't decided where they fit in, though; that's one of the things I plan to ask about when I get to Heaven or Hell, whichever it happens to be.

[Tunizcha]

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

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

Still waiting....

I'm going to have to disagree with you, because I find both the Big Bang theory and the hypothesis that an omnipotent creature that always existed created existence implausible. But the latter more so. Having the omnipotent creature would lead to the same dilemmas as having the universe, and if the creature could have always existed, why couldn't we eliminate the middleman and say the universe existed forever?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

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

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

Still waiting....

You really don't want to get into that debate with me. Trust me. I can derive and solve the equations for Friedman cosmology from 2 very simply assumptions plus the Einstein field equations. It's actually not even that hard to do. It's just a lot of algebra and a little elementary calculus.

[Almajoya]

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

Still waiting on that source.

Snakes dont talk, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakes

Humanity didnt develop from just two people in a Garden, nor is it possible to grow one from a Rib, or dirt :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution


The Earth took much, much longer to develop than 6 days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

The Sun came before Plants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plants

etc., etc., enjoy,

God is omnipotent and can do all of these things regardless of what science thinks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

[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.

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.

No, the only worshipper who needs to be wrong is you.

Or to be more literal, since you have no evidence whatsoever that millennia of worshippers all thought the same way as you do about Genesis -- or even that they all think the same as you NOW -- there is no reason for anyone to think that millennia of worshippers have been wrong.

Only the ones who think it's literal fact are wrong.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

say the universe existed forever?

Because of this pesky little law.

[Maurepas]

God is omnipotent and can do all of these things regardless of what science thinks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Once you prove to me that it exists, I'll believe you...

Im going to need to see a source from yourself showing that it does,

[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.

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.

Quoting yourself for no reason is a form of spam.

[Tunizcha]

say the universe existed forever?

Because of this pesky little law.

Well, they're already violating that with the "omnipotent creature existed forever" argument.

[Almajoya]

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

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

Still waiting....

I'm going to have to disagree with you, because I find both the Big Bang theory and the hypothesis that an omnipotent creature that always existed created existence implausible. But the latter more so. Having the omnipotent creature would lead to the same dilemmas as having the universe, and if the creature could have always existed, why couldn't we eliminate the middleman and say the universe existed forever?

The "creature" could have always existed; this doesn't mean the universe did. He could have been existing for a while, then up and decided one day, "Hey, you know what would be fun? If I made a huge expanse of matter and things and a community of worshippers...."

[Ashmoria]

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

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

Still waiting....

really?

hmmm lets look at genesis....
god makes heaven and earth, makes light and darkness on the first day....but doesnt make the sun until the 4th day. what was making this light?

....

its just not worth it. look at the first chapter of genesis. its not meant to describe a literal happening. geez the earth starts as all water which is divided by the vault of heaven--meaning that half the water ends up in the sky somehwere.

God said, 'Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.' And so it was.
7 God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault.
8 God called the vault 'heaven'. Evening came and morning came: the second day

its certainly not scientific.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

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

One story says birds were made on the fifth day. The other implies they were made on the sixth. Which is right?

[Maurepas]

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

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

Still waiting....

I'm going to have to disagree with you, because I find both the Big Bang theory and the hypothesis that an omnipotent creature that always existed created existence implausible. But the latter more so. Having the omnipotent creature would lead to the same dilemmas as having the universe, and if the creature could have always existed, why couldn't we eliminate the middleman and say the universe existed forever?

The "creature" could have always existed; this doesn't mean the universe did. He could have been existing for a while, then up and decided one day, "Hey, you know what would be fun? If I made a huge expanse of matter and things and a community of worshippers...."

Still waiting on a source for that, actually,

[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.

No, the only worshipper who needs to be wrong is you.

Or to be more literal, since you have no evidence whatsoever that millennia of worshippers all thought the same way as you do about Genesis -- or even that they all think the same as you NOW -- there is no reason for anyone to think that millennia of worshippers have been wrong.

Only the ones who think it's literal fact are wrong.

I've yet to hear anything from you that isn't just emotional sparring. Your post makes very little sense to me; there is plenty of evidence that there have been millennia of worshippers- artifacts, documents, temples etc. This is where modern Jewish/Christian/Muslim beliefs stem from.

[Barringtonia]

Okay, B, seriously now -- what part of anything you've been saying has, in your mind, fuck-all to do with the earlier assertions that people believed the creation myths to be literally and actually true?

My position is that such a black-and-white view isn't a fair reflection of the intricate way in which creation stories were formalised into fact.

There certainly are people who take the creation story literally, how far that goes back is up for debate.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The "creature" could have always existed; this doesn't mean the universe did. He could have been existing for a while, then up and decided one day, "Hey, you know what would be fun? If I made a huge expanse of matter and things and a community of worshippers...."

Omnipotence defined as "the ability to literally do anything" is actually impossible. Omnipotence defined as "the ability to do anything which is not logically self-refuting" is not logically impossible, but it certainly does tear physics a new asshole.

[Maurepas]

I've yet to hear anything from you that isn't just emotional sparring. Your post makes very little sense to me; there is plenty of evidence that there have been millennia of worshippers- artifacts, documents, temples etc. This is where modern Jewish/Christian/Muslim beliefs stem from.

Well of course there have been worshipers...what is missing is some proof that what they were worshiping is correct...

[Muravyets]

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.

1) They wrote about these beliefs.

Did they write that ancient audiences thought they were literally true?

2) There is historical evidence for various martyrs that died for such beliefs.

Died for beliefs. Not necessarily a belief in facts though, as opposed to a belief in, oh say, principles, spirituality, other non-fact things that matter a great deal to many people.

3) We know that people in the Middle Ages believed incredibly ridiculous things, because they actually based many documented behaviors (like medical practices) on such beliefs.

Are you asserting that Genesis was written in the Middle Ages? If so, you are moving your goalposts. Or are you claiming that, because one group of people believed incredibly ridiculous things about medicine, that is somehow proof that an entirely different group of people believed that some myths were literal fact instead of allegory or metaphor?

4) We know that the majority of people alive today hold rather unscientific and irrational beliefs.

Oh, I see. You ARE trying to argue that because people who are completely unconnected to the group you made your original claim about believe stuff that you think is dumb, that somehow proves that all people everywhere at all times also believe other stuff you think is dumb, per whatever claim you happen to make at any given time.

Gods, I wish you were as good at debating as you seem to think you are.

5) Therefore, it stands to reason that, in a time completely devoid of science, there were plenty of highly absurd beliefs, especially when we consider that, even today when people really should know better, things like creationism and astrology still have very large followings.

No, it really seriously does not. The only thing you have proven here is that you make shit up and that you might hope your ego is strong enough to carry it through.

I'm snipping the rest of your post as not worth the effort.

[Almajoya]

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

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

Still waiting....

I'm going to have to disagree with you, because I find both the Big Bang theory and the hypothesis that an omnipotent creature that always existed created existence implausible. But the latter more so. Having the omnipotent creature would lead to the same dilemmas as having the universe, and if the creature could have always existed, why couldn't we eliminate the middleman and say the universe existed forever?

The "creature" could have always existed; this doesn't mean the universe did. He could have been existing for a while, then up and decided one day, "Hey, you know what would be fun? If I made a huge expanse of matter and things and a community of worshippers...."

Still waiting on a source for that, actually,

Geez, buddy, I've been typing responses this whole time. Unknot your bloomers, will ya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_God