If one is to make a defense of the Christian faith, he must be prepared to respond to valid criticism. Now one such criticism that I have heard is that if you maintain that the creation account in Genesis is symbolical and not meant as scientific treatise, then it begs the question: symbolic of what? Of creation? Then why not just tell us how it really happened? It sounds like an unecessary complication.
>>1292056
Shit. I lost the rest of the text. I'll have to rewrite everything from memory.
Now to try to answer this question we have to understand how the process inspiration works. I don't think you should imagine God dictating every word and the inspired author just passively writing down everything as he hears it (unless it's clearly stated: "and God said...), otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, etc., as "authors". We would just say God did it.
>>1292082
I don't think Moses necessarily underwent a sort of visionary trance either, going back in time and witnessing the creation of the universe himself.
No. God, through the Holy Spirit, causes the inspired writer to write what he wants and when he wants, but not by means of automatic writing, but imparting to him, in the case of Moses, a direct intuition of the causes behind the visible phenomena, up to the highest cause of all, God himself.
So what took philosophy hundreds of years to master, from the Pre-Socratics, to Plato and Aristotle all the way to Thomas Aquinas, the nous, the four causes, material, formal, all of that efficient and final, God made it possible for Moses to grasp in a single, divinely inspired intuition.
>>1292056
>It sounds like an unecessary complication.
God knows things that we do not; what appears unnecessary from our limited mortal perspective may not actually be so.
>>1292056
>why use symbols
>giving an account of an incredibly technical process that is probably well beyond modern science to herdsmen without symbols
>>1292056
Dude, mysterious ways and shit.
>>1292103
I always thought of it like this.
God inspires an ancient Hebrew priest/shaman, he passes it down through oral tradition. It goes though several generations, changing very little, and then reaches מֹשֶׁה who compiled all the stories onto one book: Genesis.
>>1292103
But now that Moses came into possession of this knowledge, how was he going to impart it to his audience? Through the language of science, of quantum mechanics maybe? But that's impossible, he was an Iron Age man. He didn't know anything about that. From scratch? No, that doens't seem practical. Rather, he started with the familiar language of mythology and " improved" it with the data he aquired by through inspiration (much like Plato tried to improve or create his own mythology with the insights he gained from philosophy). From the Canaanite and Mesopotamian myths he got the idea of a primeval chaos or water, but with this difference: the universe didn't result from the clash of gigantic beings or the fortuitous arraing of material elements, not did it exist from eternity. Rather, the universe was created in a definite time by a supreme, benevolent and wise being, God, with intelligence and design. This being, moreover, created a divine order that should more or less reflect the human moral, and social order. Hence the six-day workweek and the sabbath featuring in creation, because both natural and moral/religious law stem from the same divine source. One could spand further, but I'll stop here.
This is how I think more or less occurred the process of writing down Genesis, but if anyone has a better explanation, I look forward to hearing it and I am open to correct myself. Cheers.
>>1292056
God spoke everything in parables. Jesus speaks constantly in parables in the Gospels. This makes His teachings accessible. It's why all writers tell stories and use metaphors.
Pic unrelated.
>>1292119
>the heaven and the earth came before light
wew
>>1292211
>I don't understand Genesis but I'm going to act like it's a science textbook
>>1292056
Let me give it a crack, OP.
Now, all you anons can feel free to rip this to shreds as
1) I have no knowledge of the texts in the original language
2) Nor nothing but intro paragraph wiki levels of Historical knowledge
For these reasons I wouldn't dare say that my interpretation is anything like a "correct" one, but in the day to day, it's how I adhere to it, and how it appeals to me. I feel as though I'm able to hold these interpretations as 1) some stories are perhaps so universal (or hey, we just abide by a generally Christian influenced culture) that their symbolic language will continue to stir deep-core unconscious feelings in us, speaking to us in the day-to-day, and 2) I have lived and suffered juuust enough to have accumulated gobs of experiences both pleasurable and traumatic that necessarily push me along these pre carved mythical channels. So, allow me to in the beginning...
I hold that Genesis is one of the most symbolically rich stories that I've ever encountered, so rich in depth, that you may hear a thousand interpretations of it (in particular, I like Paramhansa Yogananda's and Marlon Brando's interpretations) and it will still be able to take on more. For me though, Genesis is a wide, wiiide swath container/allegory of the experience of a person growing up in the world amidst a see of people doing the same. The Creation, Garden of Eden story,and all those that follow, were conceived as a way, I imagine a reeally proto-psychology/therapy interpretation of "Why does my life seem like it was so good (as a child), and now it just keeps getting shittier? As a story, it is the ultimate balm, and the perhaps the only way to begin a book attempting to explain the all of things, the journey from this world to that which is to come and all that jazz
Because imagine you’re a troubled soul in need of the wisdom of the ancient rabbis. If you are troubled, more than likely we can generalize it down to you lack the inability to deal with changes in a body that is ever calcifying/getting stuck in old ways. Genesis speaks directly to this (and more).
Think of a baby, just a little bundle of nerves and screaming and hunger and high, high plasticity. All was dark, and then there was light. Simple, yeah, but it speaks to many other things. (Also, just to the general initial sensations of the senses, of recognizing patterns. Think Pynchon's line on how "And then the lord said let there be light" was also the first division..). But imo, this speaks to an aggregated perception by generations of wisemen who saw in glimpses what we may now have an overview of via Psychology. That baby grows and all is good. The baby has a sort of inebriation to work which we adults call play. Very quickly it takes in all things new because all things are new. This is the baby perceiving. Soon, the baby can get to perceiving PATTERNS from its perceptions (the ball is red, hello mother), which leads to those PATTERNS informing its DECISIONS (if I cry at mother, food/her face will come).
All is good, all was good. Untill that baby (Adam & Eve, themselves as a pair standing in poetically for the initial encounter of Mother/Father, Man/Woman, Divine/Masculine, etc. as well as a “good enough, yeah that’s how we all came to be” answer to that favorite first-term philosophy course question “Where do we come from?”) encounters Knowledge and Life, via Sin (the serpent/Satan.). As a parable for real life, this refers to when our bodies and life (experiences) finally as they are inevitably won’t to do, betray us.
Okay, so this plastic child, going on man is acquiring more and more patterns, which leads to a regular enough BEHAVIOR. Once any person performs a BEHAVIOR often enough, they do so without having to think about it anymore (this is useful in nature, you can’t pause to contemplate the encroaching Tiger). This leads to the BEHAVIOR becoming unconscious, and thus, a HABIT is born. Okay, great right?
Well, the problem is that eventually, your HABITS may eventually get in the way of new needs of yours (and in this sense, I use HABIT in its widest scope as eeeverything you do unconsciously, so not just curse in traffic, or your little ocd-type morning rituals, but also stuff like smoking, eating a certain, holding your inner monologue the way that you do, even speaking language). This happens all the time. You are in the habit of sleeping in late, but suddenly, college is here and you keep missing that morning class you signed up for because “hey, I used to do it all the time in High School.” And you try to just stop, but fact is (and as with any unconscious behavior) you can’t undelete your old habits as you always still subconsciously need to fulfill their old wants. This would be hard enough problem as is solo, but these double-binding problems begin to pile on somewhere around your teens and for many of us, just amplify exponentially from there across ALL swaths of life. And what’s worse, EVERYONE is undergoing this same quaking whirpool, so we are all always attempting to wade through a thicket of flesh and mind, informed continuously by contradictory top-down, bottom-up nerve signals.
This is Bunyan’s Slough of Despond, this is the turmoil of the Fallen Angels in Paradise Lost, and this is most certainly one of the arcs attempted to be soothed down in Genesis. One of the most fundamental flaws in the human condition is the process of internal conflict – both wanting and not wanting something at the same time. So how do we deal with this if left to our own devices?
Original Sin = Self-Centeredness (the shame of nakednes = self-consciousness, the lying to God). That’s right, Egoism is what is meant by the Fall of Man. Being cast out of the garden refers to the twilight of the ego that we undergo growing up where it seems like the only way we can deal with having this contradictory body is to conceive a self capable of balming us with all of our pretty little lies, from hence comes self-pity, egoism, pride, all that jazz. Religion at its most ideal then is a way to get people back to the eternal now, to cast off the castles we build in our mind where living in a shattered world, we vainly attempt to rebuild the pieces into fortifications which in turn only trap us. It is no mistake that two of the biggest messages of Holy texts are Forgivesness (as with the Our Father, to forgive debtors is to no longer behold others to past and future pains) and seeking salvation with others (no better way of getting out of your head than helping somebody else. All this reminds me heavily of a favorite Corinthians
For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Corinthians
This ended up longer and more rambling than I intended. It’s sloppy, and perhaps unclear in areas, but I do think that if anything, this is an okay way to begin more intricate conversations informed by people more well-read. Thoughts?
>>1292056
DUDE IT'S A METAPHOR LMAO
DUDE EVERYTHING I CAN'T EXPLAIN/UNDERSTAND/RECONCILE WITH SCIENCE IS A METHAPHOR LMAO
DUDE THE BIBLE IS TOTALLY LITERAL AND WITHOUT ERROR EXCEPT FOR EVERYTHING THAT IS A METAPHOR LMAO
DUDE EVERYTHING IN MY PROTESTANT BIBLE IS TOTALLY THE ORIGINAL TEXT AND HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED, HOWEVER EVERYTHING THAT WAS REMOVED WAS TOTALLY NOT IMPORTANT AND WAS JUST FANFICTION BULLSHIT LMAO
Sorry for the shitpost
>>1292214
Please explain it to me then.
>>1292294
>implying we said anything else was literal
>implying we're protestants
You can believe Job and Jonah are holy books while understanding that they're probably plays, anon.
>>1292357
>spoonfeed me theology so I can mock it
>>1292362
What makes a book holy or not? Church approval? Lip service to some specific religion?
>>1292363
Ah, how fitting.
>You see, these couple lines have to be extrapolated and arranged in a very convenient way to make even a tiny little bit of sense, that's why you need to have a deep understanding in theology before even trying to look at them from a doubtful point of view.
>>1292367
Why not?
>>1292367
the weight you give it with serious contemplation maybe?
>>1292374
>I am going to act like my premises are the most natural ideas in the world and everyone else is either autistic or stupid
>>1292374
Light, or wisdom and knowledge, is dependent on both God and nature, but gives insights into them. Was that hard? Was that more useful in five thousand years of tent sermons than
>uhhh yeah there was light bouncin around for billions of years and, like, it was all just hot for a while, but the earth was formed later on out of hot rocks
>>1292385
I've never said anything about anyone. I'm just pointing the fact that what's written in there doesn't make any sense nor have any apparent relation with everything we know so far.
You said you don't agree with my position but can't even bother to answer my question. Why don't you explain it to me if you understand it?
>>1292393
Because no atheists ever have responded to that explanation with anything more than
>lol you have to twist it
Does that make sense? Do you see why we assume bad faith?
>doesn't make any sense
Have you read the thread? Do you see the other anons' take on it? No, you didn't, and you don't, because you're an autistic evangelist trying to reduce everything to facts.
>>1292144
This does tie in to what I know about the culture of the ancient Jews. Their culture was passed down orally until the Israel-Judah civil war, which caused them to pen down their stories and use them as propaganda and veiled threats.
>>1292392
>And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”
>God called the light “day”
Doesn't make much sense to me.
>>1292393
I'm just pointing out that it's not meant to provide facts about the universe as much as wisdom for a good life.
>>1292056
>. Now one such criticism that I have heard is that if you maintain that the creation account in Genesis is symbolical and not meant as scientific treatise, then it begs the question: symbolic of what? Of creation? Then why not just tell us how it really happened?
Cause the first creation account in Gen 1 is centuries younger than the second (Gen 2 ff), and serves a different purpose: It was written in the time of the Babylonian exile (as determined by the style and language it was written in) and served the purpose to show the Israelits that lived there and were slowly falling into worship of the Babylonian gods - among many were stars and such things or forces of nature, that those all were just objects and creation of god. That is why it names every single thing compared to the second creation myth.
>>1292404
Light comes from God. God provides definition between light, truth, and darkness, error.
>>1292399
Why do you assume that I'm an atheist? Why are you calling me "autistic" for no reason? There aren't any references to this specific part in the other posts.
You're wrong if you think that if you say your explanation, people can't oppose it. What kind of mentality is that? Do I have to take everything you say as truth?
>>1292425
I'm not saying that they can't, just that they don't. And I'm assuming you're an atheist because that's who usually asks that sort of question, and autistic because that's the sort of person that derides metaphor and symbolism because they're not facts.
>>1292412
So light can mean day, wisdom, truth, knowledge, etc? How do you know which one is the correct one in a particular verse?
I mean, I suppose anyone reading that would see it as the moment of the creation of the day/night cycle.
>>1292462
It can mean any or all of the above, that's where a lot of the beauty comes from, from equating metaphysical and physical concepts. When you say "anyone reading that" are you saying "anyone" as in anyone raised in modern Western mandatory education, or anyone raised in a Hebrew sheep-raising clan?
>>1292477
Literally anyone. After all, it clearly states that "God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night”".
>>1292520
That's where you're letting your cultural bias overwhelm you. Ancient Hebrews put symbolism into literally everything, and never saw anything at face value. Look at this:
http://biologos.org/blogs/archive/the-numerology-of-genesis-1
And that's not just modern scholars wanking, that's the sort of thing rank-and-file Hebrews talked about.
And they probably believed the light came after the Earth was created. They believed the heavens were a literal dome, too. It didn't affect their lives much. It would have been hard for them to correct orbits, but they weren't launching any satellites.
>>1292596
Would the model for their cosmology look more like this?
>>1292626
Yeah, that's the sort of thing they believed in.
I honestly don't think our current understanding of the cosmos is that much more accurate than theirs. I don't subscribe to the "NOW we understand the universe" school of thought.
>>1292626
No, that's a modern literalist intepretation.
>>1292636
It's not likely that many Hebrews thought about it that much. They never even did much trade or sea travel.
>>1292211
Clearly the "heavens" does not mean the actual sky as God creates the sky later. It is possible for it to be interpreted as God's domain, and the Earth as the domain where man and God's future creation is to be.
>>1292633
I always thought of it in a "one step closer" kind of way. Like, we do know more than they did, but we know a lot less than what our descendants will.
>>1292661
Yeah, I'm glad we know as much as we do and that we can do as much as we can with it. I'm just not sold on us knowing all there is to know, because we never did before.
>>1292633
>I honestly don't think our current understanding of the cosmos is that much more accurate than theirs.
Oh please.
>>1292678
It's a statement of optimism, anon, not a denigration of modern science.
>>1292645
Nah, "sky" must mean something else. Because symbolism, you know.
>>1292678
>science is about producing workable models.
We don't have to have every little blade of grass shown on a football diagram, so why should we expect the same from a model of an atom or the solar system.
>>1292056
Genesis is less than 10% creation myths
>>1292698
Creation-of-the-universe myths. All of it is the creation of the Israelites.
>>1292696
>We don't have to have every little blade of grass shown on a football diagram
That's what science aim for, actually.
Don't you think that "our current understanding of the cosmos is that much more accurate than theirs" is a bit too much? I mean, come on.
And I'm pretty sure we have the solar system figurated out.
>>1292717
Hopefully the time comes when it doesn't seem to be an exaggeration.
>>1292056
To be fair, the Bible gets the number PI wrong.
So it was either written by men who had imperfect knowledge or God just didn't give a shit about letting us know about PI.
>>1292717
I'm just saying that credit should be given where credit is due. They did the best they could, given their situation, and we're doing the best we can do.
>>1292731
>reminder that this is a thing.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysecinv367w
>>1292056
>symbolic of what?
I read a hypothesis somewhere that all creation stories are ultimately derived from the boy leaving the house to marry and become the man.
>>1292731
This is the worst bait I have ever seen. I even had to stop lurking to point it. Are you really getting triggered because they approximated the size of pi to 3 in a description of a pool?
Btw,shit, I got baited.
>>1292737
>>1292753
I don't know. If God was all knowing, he know about at least going out a few decimal places.
>>1292763
Fortunately for God, he's not the one that wrote the Bible.
>>1292732
>I'm just saying that credit should be given where credit is due.
I agree.
>They did the best they could, given their situation.
Yeah, nothing.
>>1292763
Maybe the writer was an engineer. And good luck getting exactly pi in almost all numerical systems out there.
>>1292763
Did you know how Hebrews wrote numbers? Letters. Just letters. They had numerical values for letters. And so the craftsman making the molten sea would know, "yeah, I'm not supposed to be making a hexagon, let's just get this as close to these measurements as possible."
>>1292776
>exactly pi in almost all numerical systems
Pi is transcendental, it cannot be exactly represented in any number system which isn't base-pi.
>>1292796
I did not know the fancy name, but I put that "almost" there because of that idea.
>>1292772
So if the Bible was written by men who had imperfect knowledge of the universe, doesn't that mean the Bible provides imperfect knowledge?
>>1292789
Or if ancient Hebrew was incapable of explaining numbers correctly, doesn't that mean its imperfect knowledge and thus not the source of all understanding.
>>1292813
Of the universe, yes. Thus the
>it's not a science textbook
thing.
>>1292822
You're acting like we're Baptists again.
>>1292823
So if the Bible can't explain science, should we not use the Bible to determine our science?
Or to an extension of that... Not to use it for important things.
>>1292835
There's more important things than science.
>>1292835
>So if the Bible can't explain science, should we not use the Bible to determine our science?
Yes.
>Or to an extension of that... Not to use it for important things.
Not following your argument.
>Principia Mathematica should not be used to determine monetary policy
>It should therefore not be used for important things
>>1292859
Without Calculus a lot of the higher functions of financial calculations do not work, so I'm not sure where you are going with this.
I mean science and technology has given us 99% of our standard of living. Its the only thing that keeps us from extinction or a very miserably life.
>>1292899
Without morality a lot of the higher functions of science genocide people.
>>1292908
Right, but you don't need Christianity for that. Ask the Chinese.
>>1292908
Thank God the Nazis put a stop to that.
>>1292908
Tell that to the Canaanites
>>1292918
And you don't need Principia Mathematica for calculus. Are we going to get back to Genesis?
>>1292918
The Chinese have butchered an awful lot of folk throughout their history.
>>1292936
I mean, I'm fine if you want to say Genesis is a metaphor. Even the Pope says evolution is real.
>>1292942
So has literally every culture.
>>1292942
So did the Christians in the 30 years war.
>>1292945
Genesis is a metaphor to a point, and only to a point. Certain aspects of the story are absolutely not a metaphor.
For example, The Fall is not a metaphor. It can't be a metaphor, because it explains Original Sin and all the Christian thought that flows from this.
>>1292956
Original Sin is a dogma belonging wholly to the Catholics and their spawn.
>>1292945
>not reading the thread
>>1292956
So if the Pope says evolution is real, does that make the story of the fall invalid as a literal story? I mean who were technically the first humans to fall?
>>1292956
With what species did it occur? Ardipithecus? Australopithecus? Erectus? Modern man?
>>1292982
The first protean slime to figure out self-replication.
>>1292990
Wouldn't that make all animals fallen by extent? I was fine with converting chimps, but a cat would be impossible.
>>1292995
Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed
I actually just read genesis the other night (doing a read through of the bible so I can better understand medieval psychology) and I'm wondering: how many of these city states are known to have existed historically? Like, they mention the Amorites, Uruk, Ur, etc.
What could the flood have been? I am of the opinion it was the filling in of the Persian gulf (which would have once also been a river valley similar to Mesopotamia and Elam.
>>1293039
It's pretty accurate about what other city-states the Israelites squabbled with.
I'm on board with the Black Sea flood theory. Big enough to really look like the world went under.
>>1293085
I think it's the Persian gulf. That would have been big enough of an area surrounded by enough civilized peoples to seem like the whole world. I am going to go out on a limb and say that a tsunami broke down the floodgates as it were, and flooded the gulf in a very short amount of time. Whether that is tectonic, meteor impact, or just glacial melt I cannot say. I think it would be cool to do some underwater archaeology in the region because it definitely was dry around 8000 years ago at least.
>>1293192
Further, the Sumerian account tells of the Apsu, a people who live in boats in a marshy area, and after whose boats Utnapishtim's boat is to be designed. It would make sense that if there was an area significantly lower than sea level with rivers flowing into it, that area would be marshy.
>>1292056
>musings on the Bible
Why? Any man who has any remote understanding of the world around him tends to notice the Bible has inaccuracies so heinous it's ridiculous
>pi is 3
>the Sun was made before the Earth
>the sky was a roof actually
>Mount Ararat was the highest in the world apparently
>did you know animals came before insects n shiet?
>people lived for like, thousands of years
>never mind that most of those names and events were straight up copied from Sumerian myths
>>1293279
>>the Sun was made before the Earth
Depends on how you define both.
>>1293294
>>1293279
>thousands of years
Methusalah, the oldest man in the Bible, was 969 years old when he died. Hundreds not thousands.
>>1293303
My bad. That makes it fine then, right?
>>1293279
[citation needed]
>>1293307
This b8 is HARRIBLE
>>1293310
Which one? Which one of the things I said is wrong?
>>1293312
I'm asking you to cite the verses.
>>1293307
If you figure "years" in this case to be a mistranslation of "lunar months," absolutely.
Either that or there were extremely long-lived humans a long time ago. Violation of the laws of physics amirite.
>>1293314
>3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.
>4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
>5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
Even though not stated directly it clearly implies Mt Ararat is the highest in the world. If you want to contest this point go ahead.
From Genesis 1:
>9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
>10 And God called the dry land Earth[...]
>16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Also, the Moon only reflects sunlight and is not a luminous celestial body of its own. I made a mistake in my first claim ,what I meant was the Sun was made after the Earth. Also, Sun, Moon, Stars, all the same day? Wew lad
>20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. [...]
>24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
He apparently made things randomly.
For people living hundreds of years, check Genesis 11:11-11:24, as I don't have room o quote it all inside 2,000 words.
>>1293324
They literally say years. There's some among that enumeration that live only 119 who had sons and daughters, that makes them what, 10 at their time of death?
>>1293353
Yep. It could be wrong. It could be that a pre-modern oral history exaggerated the ages of certain legendary ancestors, rendering any book attached to it completely false and useless.
>>1293357
From Genesis 11:
>18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu:
19 And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters.
You can easily trace these early Bible myths to Sumerian or Babylonian ones which also had people living hundreds of years seemingly at random. I don't know of any other culture in the area that bore such ideas.
>>1293370
That sounds valid but I'm gonna need a sauce on it.
>>1293372
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Interesting stuff.
>>1292708
That's what creation myths generally refer to
>>1292103
>So what took philosophy hundreds of years to master, from the Pre-Socratics, to Plato and Aristotle all the way to Thomas Aquinas, the nous, the four causes, material, formal, all of that efficient and final, God made it possible for Moses to grasp in a single, divinely inspired intuition.
>implying moses would have said that shit without the foundation that philosophy laid for him
>implying religion comes before philosophy, and not the byproduct of it
>>1293527
>implying Moses even existed
>>1293560
At least 3 Moseses existed
>>1293602
I know at least 2 right now and one's my uncle, but the "let my people go" Moses never did.
>>1293608
I know 2, and neither has a faggot nephew, so that's at least 3
>>1292146
>This being, moreover, created a divine order that should more or less reflect the human moral, and social order.
Why does this seem shoehorned in so hard. Why on earth would a perfect being have human morality.
>>1293651
I think he meant "reflected by" but let his fallenness misrepresent him.
>We're still having arguments on the scientific validity of Bronze Age legend because someone thought it'd be a good idea to turn Christianity into the sole religion of the Roman Empire 1700 years ago and add Hebrew myth to its canon.
>>1292056
How can it be divinely inspired if there is no god?
>>1293942
Jack mate xtians XD
>>1293735
>he somehow missed that nobody on the pro-Genesis side claims that it is valuable as a scientific proofbook
>>1294074
So what good is it then?
>>1294258
>And thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved and has not perished, and will save us if we are obedient to the word spoken; and we shall pass safely over the river of Forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled. Wherefore my counsel is that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall we live dear to one another and to the gods, both while remaining here and when, like conquerors in the games who go round to gather gifts, we receive our reward. And it shall be well with us both in this life and in the pilgrimage of a thousand years which we have been describing. Plato, The Republic, Book X
>>1292056
First of all make your mind up on which textual tradition you want to comment on - LXX or Masoretic.
Then even within the groups there are also variations for some verses.
First if all Genesis does not treat the creation scientifically - it treats it symbolically in the sense it doesn't explain how - but only gives an imagine of it. It is to be taken literally, God created the world out of nothing- God respected a time-frame of 6 days, the day could be a standard solar day or 1000 years as one psalm note that a day for god is 1000 years.
From Genesis we learn that God created the world from one block as a whole, and already mature - so there's no evolution or stages of matter.
The animals were created as mature and with everything they needed, behavior and such to live happy.
The stars were created mature as if they indeed were formed by some processes, everything was created this way - so basically even if light required billion of years to reach us, based on the laws that govern the universe now - God created the universe as a whole, with the light already already having the appearance of "age" of travel.
In the same way man was created as adult, there was no death for animals or humans before sim - so there cannot be a succession of various creatures that build on top of each other and result in human - even tho man appears as some sort of primate that "adapted" - he was just created as he is - also with capability to understand language, speak and comprehend lots of symbols and concepts that God defined.
The concept of night and day is defined by God and man created understands it so for example.
Then God gave man the concept of clothing after he realized he's naked - God created man clothing and passed him down understanding about it, revealed to him so to speak.
When Moses wrote it down under the dialogue with God - he did not understand it fully, he just got revealed unto him images and words - that he could comprehend.
>>1294258
Knowing where you came from and what's your purpose.
Very interesting video on Genesis and why it is the most accurate out of all religious books about the beginnings of the universe, presented by an ex-atheist professor:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dsbj7EN1Uzs
Everyone in this thread should watch it.
>>1295465
So why didn't God just tell them "oi ya kants, Earth revolves around the Sun, son".
>>1296080
Thread was worth it just for this video. A little bit of a Protestant bias, but still good.
>>1296080
This guy rejects evolution.
>God loves horses and whales. He knows because of their huge size and small populations that they will go extinct rapidly. When they do, he makes new ones.
>>1296856
Well, he *is* an old-earther. Bizzare ideas, but at least they're reasonable.
>>1296936
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/old-earth/critique-of-hugh-rosss-creation-story/
>reasonable
What do you mean? He completely disregard every evidence we have, fossil records, genetics, everything.
Yet he's okay with proposing things such as "UFOs are sent by Satan".
>>1296981
Beats the YECs who say "your way or God's way."
>>1297218
Well yeah, that's true.
>>1296936
People like this are the most retarded I think.
>Earth is like a couple of billion years old
>but it was made by God, and before the Sun
>so is every animal n shiet
>and instead of telling this to the chinks or fucking Egyptians or Sumerians or Minoans
>God told the literally most backwards people in the Fertile Crescent and chose them
>for no reason whatsoever
How do you even live with a cognitive dissonance this big?
>>1297880
Well, you could say that these teachings given to backwards people still won and that's the proof of God's power.
>>1297929
And I could also say that's a very stupid idea.
>>1297957
Why? The majority of the world is Christian now.
>>1292056
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Accept our god Cthulhu and his prophet Lovecraft!
>>1298155
Even if the entire world were christian the fact that it is a stupid idea would remain.
Bump
>>1292056
If there's something symbolic in the bible, the bible explains what the symbols are.
There's not a lot of symbolic language in the creation story, only Christians too timid or afraid to stand up for revealed knowledge from God being a far better means of gaining information than empirical guesswork.
God said exactly how the creation happened, and then Adam gave his account beginning on Day Six.
>>1292285
I see and try to make informative posts like this all the time but I notice the plebs never respond to them. Just wanna let you know it's appreciated, anon. You're exactly right.
>>1297880
God loved Abraham, loved the Jews, and took them for Himself even though they were weak and few in number.
And because they were weak and few in number, when they toppled Egypt, the world panicked.
And when the world found out that the living God was in Israel, they panicked further.
300 men defeat 10,000. A fluke? And yet it happens again and again and again, with God on the side of the winning 300. Not at Hell's Gate, but with Gideon.
>>1292056
>then it begs the question
the dipshit has no idea of what he is talking about
>>1300787
Which Adam?
>>1292285
You're dead bang wrong, child.
"Original Sin" as a concept is sheer popery and does not deal with the facts at all. Adam sinned and died. And because he died, and Eve died, their children (you) were stillborn.
That sin was Rebellion and Unbelief, not self-centeredness. They disbelieved and disobeyed God, and believed and obeyed the devil. And when they did that, they died, just that very day, just as God said.
And when they sinned, and died, they lost the Holy Spirit in them, and THEN they were ashamed of being naked, because they were no longer being clothed by God.
They ran off and made clothes of fig leaves.
God killed some sheep and made them proper clothing, foreshadowing the necessity of the shedding of blood to cover sins, and the proper sacrifice to make to God.
The first sin killed humanity.
If you are not born again in the Spirit, you were born dead, remain dead, and will be sorted out with the dead into the second death.
If you become born again, the Holy Spirit that Adam lost, you will regain. You will have the Holy Spirit living in you, and you will be alive.
All of these people telling you that you need forgiveness are fools. All sins were forgiven at the cross.
All sins but Unbelief. For Unbelief, you go to hell.
>>1292357
God could have made everything in a second. In an instant.
He worked 6 days and rested the 7th to set a pattern for man that He calls the sabbath. Work 6 days, rest on the 7th.
Work the land 6 years, let it lie fallow on the 7th.
Govern for 6 millennium, rest as God rules on the 7th.
>>1292367
God makes things holy. Not people, and not angels.
The bible is holy because the men who wrote it were inspired by, and indwelled by, the Holy Spirit of God.
>>1292626
No, that's no good. It has some proper elements, but no.
>>1300813
So a virtuous unbeliever goes to hell, but if Tom Brady believed in god all his life, he'd have gone to heaven.
Got it.
>>1292645
Three heavens.
1. Our atmo
2. Space
3. Heaven, where God and the angels live. It is not "higher" than our two heavens; it overlaps it at all points and at all times. People there talk to people on the earth. It's not far away. When Elijah was taken up, and when Jesus ascended, they went up for a little bit and then crossed over into the third heaven.
Both Paul and John the Revelator were taken into the third heaven, and lived to tell about it.
>>1292731
Bullshit.
Using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:
outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches
To find the "Jewish" or "Bible" value for pi, we need to have the inner radius. Once we have that value, we can plug it into the formula for the circumference and compare with the given circumference value of 540 inches.
Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be:
90 – 4 = 86 inches
Let's do the calculations:
inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches
The inner radius and the inner circumference.
The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:
540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)
Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.
Um... Isn't "3.14" the approximation we all use for pi?
>>1300787
>then Adam gave his account beginning on Day Six.
why do you feel the need to make shit up that isn't there? no where does it say that Adam wrote the section of Genesis about him
>>1300812
There is only one Adam, hand-crafted by God out of clay, who breathed the Breath of Life, the Ruach Elohim, the Holy Spirit, into his nostrils, and he became a living being in the image of God.
>>1300838
There are no virtuous unbelievers. They all stand condemned by their unbelief before their lives are shown to fall short of the glory of God.
>>1300852
It's obvious if you read the text that the "second" creation story is from Adam.
>>1300852
Genesis 2:4 says, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens’. This marks a break with chapter 1. This phraseology next occurs in Genesis 5:1, where it reads ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man’.
‘Generations’ is a translation of the Hebrew word toledoth, which means ‘origin’ or ‘record of the origin’. It identifies an account or record of events. The phrase was apparently used at the end of each section in Genesis2 identifying the patriarch (Adam, Noah, the sons of Noah, Shem, etc.) to whom it primarily referred, and possibly who was responsible for the record. There are 10 such divisions in Genesis.
>>1300856
that does nothing to justify your claim. nowhere is there a claim in the Bible that Adam wrote his portion of Genesis, nor any of the other people in Genesis. You might as well just say that Moses recieved knowledge about the events of Genesis from divine revelation instead of making up even more bullshit
>>1300856
I meant to say which version of Adam. Adam the Hebrew? Adam the Ethiopian? Adam the Caucasian? Adam the giant? Adam the titan? Or Adam the ape?
>>1300873
I don't make claims.
I post truth.
You can do whatever you'd like with the truth; that's on you. It's on me to present it to you.
>>1300863
point it out. nowhere does it say that Adam wrote the account. just because he is a person central to that part of the story doesn't mean he wrote the account. and Adam's life story doesn't have the level of detail you'd expect from an eyewitness account
>>1300884
There's only one Adam.
It's up to you to weigh your sources properly.
I weigh the bible from a scale of 1 to 100 at Infinity.
>>1300895
Why would it? Do you think Adam was proud of himself? Do you think he enjoyed his life, knowing that he had condemned mankind to death, and pain, and suffering, and sorrow, and disease, and the curse on the earth, and the curse on his wife, and the curse on the entire creation?
>>1300899
so he was so sad about his life that he refused to simply put his name on what he wrote or to write in first person? you have no evidence to show that this is true and the style of writing is more similar to a non-eyewitness account
>>1300896
Most genetic testing puts our earliest ancestors in Eastern Africa. Genesis states that Eden was between the Tigris and Euphrates river.
>>1292056
>It sounds like an unecessary complication.
Is it? Do you feel that Shakespeare engaged in an unnecessary complication with his plays?
Why didn't he write about how things actually work?
>>1300919
You can't see that there is a second creation account.
You can't see that it starts on Day Six.
You can't tell that it's from Adam.
This all seems like it's on you.
>>1300934
It should put us in Iraq, at the head of the Tigris and Euphrates (and two other underground - now - rivers) that I can't be arsed to look up right now.
>>1300934
To clarify, this is why I know that conclusion to be wrong, as it contradicts the bible.
You think the "scientists" can somehow be more right than the bible.
Never happened, never will.
>>1300954
>>1300959
We call that pseudoscience.
Refer to this link.
>>1292737
>>1292146
>God's breath hovering over the water
>That translation
Translations can be "spirit" or "breath", why the fuck would someone translate it as breath.
>>1292056
>then it begs the question
it does no such thing
>>1300959
>>1300970
On a more serious note, here's this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg4AjD1fUaw
>>1301629
can I have this video in transcript form so I don't have to endure the 2edgy4u music and bad mic narration
>>1301652
It's primarily image-based. It's meant to show the similarities in ape, monkey, and human behavior. The general arguement is using a creationist youtuber's arguement against him. He says "if we came from a monkey, does that mean we can act like them too?" and then it goes on to show how we have similar reactions to similar events. It shows a baboon hunting a bird and a bushman hunting a antelope, an asian mother holding her dead child and a mother chimpanzee holding her long-dead and decaying infant, and goes as far as to liken world leaders declaring war on other countries to chimps giving a rallying call to raid another troop. There's also some stuff about chromosomes and transitional forms in there too.
Bump with Lucy
Why do you type like such a faggot?
>>1292152
now I'm hungry. Thanks anon.
>>1300813
Hey, I appreciate this anon. Thank you
>>1300791
Hey, I appreciate this anon. Thank you
>>1300848
Thank you for this post. The following silence by the proud reprobates is proof you're right.
Reprobates BTFO and on their way to hell to discuss gender studies with their father Satanberg while burning in a lake of fire.
>>1300863
It's "obvious" that you're a bold liar and hellhound heretic.
>>1303902
You smack of indifferentist new ager heretic and you and that anon that agreed with you will but in hell.
>>1303324
You, you're going to hell too.
