PDA

View Full Version : Interpret Genesis 1 to make sense



Truthseeker
06-21-2014, 11:33 AM
It seems to me Christians need an interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to make sense. It doesn't have to be the RIGHT one, just seems to make sense.

People who have tried to make sense out of Genesis 1 are Oxymixmudd and GRMorton. They had a debate recently, but unfortunately it seems GRMorton is too busy.

A point to keep in mind is that the Lord God is timeless (out of time, if you prefer). Something that from our human perspective occurred in the past and another thing that will soon occur in the future are things that occur all at once from God's perspective. Not a good way to put it, perhaps, but about the best I can explain.

Another point is that God may be frequently anthropomorphized in the Bible, even though that may distort the truth. We humans are simply not able to understand God's nature in human terms.

If you have a favorite interpretation, go ahead, present it here!

shunyadragon
06-21-2014, 02:16 PM
It seems to me Christians need an interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to make sense. It doesn't have to be the RIGHT one, just seems to make sense.

People who have tried to make sense out of Genesis 1 are Oxymixmudd and GRMorton. They had a debate recently, but unfortunately it seems GRMorton is too busy.

A point to keep in mind is that the Lord God is timeless (out of time, if you prefer). Something that from our human perspective occurred in the past and another thing that will soon occur in the future are things that occur all at once from God's perspective. Not a good way to put it, perhaps, but about the best I can explain.

Another point is that God may be frequently anthropomorphized in the Bible, even though that may distort the truth. We humans are simply not able to understand God's nature in human terms.

If you have a favorite interpretation, go ahead, present it here!

Actually I do not attribute any significant religious meaning to Genesis at all. I consider it simply as ancient literature describing the world from an ancient perspective over 2500 years ago.

For those seeking a religious perspective I prefer the allegorical Jewish understanding of Genesis. Genesis 1, nor Genesis as whole, is in reality not an important book for Jews. The following link describes it well. Cited is part of the summary.



The religious message is precisely the realm in which science cannot compete, and those devoted to the cause of the Bible would do far better service to their cause by stressing its unique religious message. To the religious person it makes little difference whether the world was created in six days or several billion years.

What counts is the deeper message of the biblical account of creation: The world was made by a wise Creator who seeks man's welfare, who created the world carefully with man's benefit in mind, who created man with Godlike qualities and commanded him to administer the world wisely.

Though we observe the Sabbath every seven days, it is this deeper message which we celebrate each week. The current views of modern science deepen our understanding of this message and renew our confidence in it.

Spartacus
06-21-2014, 02:37 PM
http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Persistence-Evil-Jon-Levenson/dp/0691029504

It does some work connecting Genesis 1 with its cultural and historical contexts as well as its relationship to other parts of Scripture.

I took a class that got into this subject a bit, but I'd have to dig back through some notes and texts in order to explain it.

NormATive
06-21-2014, 04:30 PM
It seems to me Christians need an interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to make sense. It doesn't have to be the RIGHT one, just seems to make sense.

People who have tried to make sense out of Genesis 1 are Oxymixmudd and GRMorton. They had a debate recently, but unfortunately it seems GRMorton is too busy.

A point to keep in mind is that the Lord God is timeless (out of time, if you prefer). Something that from our human perspective occurred in the past and another thing that will soon occur in the future are things that occur all at once from God's perspective. Not a good way to put it, perhaps, but about the best I can explain.

Another point is that God may be frequently anthropomorphized in the Bible, even though that may distort the truth. We humans are simply not able to understand God's nature in human terms.

If you have a favorite interpretation, go ahead, present it here!

During one of my orientation classes while converting to Judaism, I took a class in Hebrew that used Genesis as a text. They choose this book because it uses a variety of combinations of plural names for gods. Yes; gods with an "s"

It is believed that G-d is conversing with other deities during the creation of the Earth. I didn't understand this at the time, because they emphasised the Shema (G-d is one) so much.

But, as I have come to understand, Judaism does not make the claim that G-d is the ONLY god - just the "correct" G-d. After all, how can one be jealous of other gods if there are no other gods?

The class did get into a whole symbolic thing about gardens in ancient Jewish philosophy, but it got so esoteric, I kind of tuned it out. Plus, my Hebrew wasn't that good at the time, so I just pretended to understand out of embarrassment.

The take away is that Jews mostly view Genesis as an allegorical book rather than a traditional Creation story. Christians spend way more time with Genesis than Jews, I would say.

For example, Jews do onto use Genesis to bolster the "original sin" theory as Christians do. They do not believe in original sin. They do not believe that mankind is "fallen." They believe that G-d also created evil, and that is why there is evil in the world.

NORM

Cow Poke
06-21-2014, 04:37 PM
The class did get into a whole symbolic thing about gardens in ancient Jewish philosophy, but it got so esoteric, I kind of tuned it out.

My Tour Guide in Israel said, on more than a few occasions, "If there is a difficult way to do something, the Jewish [sic] will find it". :smile:

rogue06
06-21-2014, 04:45 PM
Since I've posted this a couple times before I might as well repeat it here...



Personally I see the creation account (especially the one provided in Genesis 1) as primarily being a monotheistic polemic against the various pagan cosmogonies and polytheistic myths of the people that surrounded the ancient Hebrews and were corrupting the ancient Israelis -- and that it still conveys powerful truths today. Theological truths that remain timeless.

Such a reading is still a literal interpretation but one which doesn't rely on symbolism or a lot of poetic elements. While historical and scientific questions may be foremost in our minds it seems doubtful that it was foremost in the author’s. If it were then it would contain the answers to questions that have vexed theologians probably since the day it was written. If the text were primarily concerned with presenting history then it would have provided simple details like who in the world Cain married, and the like.

This is why we need to be real careful about attempting to extract answers to questions the writer wasn't concerned with. We need to be on guard that we don’t get so distracted by our own interests that we fail to notice what the message about God here is.

The burning issues when the text was written had nothing to do with science or history but the temptations of idolatry and syncretism that threatened Jewish monotheism. Hence, the frequent invectives by the various prophets against altars in high places, the Canaanite cult of Baal, and "whoring after other gods” seen throughout the Old Testament. What appears to be emphasized at the start of Genesis is that God is the one true God who is responsible for the creation of and is Lord over literally everything.

He isn't merely yet another tribal deity or the ruler of a nation, but the creator and ruler over the Sun, Moon and stars, which (as Deuteronomy 4:19-20; 17:3; cf. 29:25; 32: 8-9; II Kings 21:2-3; 23:5; Jeremiah 8:2; 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5 demonstrate) were seen by many as deities themselves. In Genesis the heavenly bodies are denied any divine character or potency. Their primary duty is to bestow light at their appointed times, thus restraining the darkness in an ordered fashion. In Genesis 1:16 the Sun and Moon are deliberately not named but are merely referred to as “two great luminaries” or “two great lights.” The Sun and Moon were deified by the neighboring people but here they’re reduced to nothing more than lamps that light the Earth and along with the stars regulate the calendar in service of humanity (as opposed to the belief the stars control our lives).

The same thing goes for the other things mentioned in Genesis 1. There were sky gods and earth gods (in some myths the earth was made from the body of a dead god) and water gods. There were gods of light and darkness, rivers and vegetation, animals and fertility. Water and darkness themselves were often characterized as forces with which the deities in pagan lands had to struggle with and overcome. Yet all are relegated to the status of merely things that God created and commands. Everything worshiped by the Egyptians, Canaanites, Assyrians or any other Mesopotamian people are shown by Genesis 1 to be creations of God, effortlessly brought into existence.

God is not one of the forces of nature like so many of the neighboring deities represent. Not even the supreme fertility or Nature with a capital “N.” Instead God is the sovereign creator of the world and source of everything in it – but not identifiable with it. He is wholly other, the transcendent God. God is, well God. Absolutely nothing lies outside His creative power[1].

There isn't the slightest indication here that God is bound or restricted by Chaos or merely some demiurge working with a resisting material that wasn't of His own making and that somehow places limits on His will. The plants and animals reproduce after their own kind to stress that they remain plants and animals and don’t become deities – not some scientific declaration. And mankind isn't like the Pharaohs of Egypt, divine in our own right, nor are we merely some afterthought as depicted in the Babylonian Enuma Elish.

Further, it is made clear that while nature is "good" it is not divine and shouldn't be worshiped, and by declaring it good God informs us that the view that physical things are inherently evil is also to be rejected. Our problem is sin, not physicality.

For me, the intent of Genesis 1 is crystal clear; it serves to glorify God the Creator, not those things which He created. All of creation, the entire universe and everything within it, owes its existence to the creative power of God (cf., Acts 17:24; Romans 11:36). God has absolute sovereignty over creation and everything in it. There are just too many elements suggesting (to me at least) that history is being used here more as a literary device or framework for presenting the completed work of creation.

Moreover, it seems a good idea to keep in mind that even when presenting historical events that they’re theological representations of the historical events. IOW, essentially, biblical history is more concerned with transmitting significance over exact statistical detail[2].

Finally, we must keep in mind that the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is a relatively modern development owing a lot to the ideals of the 19th century positivists. The point is that it is ridiculous to hold Genesis, or other parts of the Bible for that matter, to modern standards of scholarship that were unknown to it.

Paul tells us what the purpose of the Bible is, and it is not to tell us how nature functions or came about. Rather, it is "to give you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 3:15). It is "breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (vs. 16-17).

Genesis isn't an attempt to grapple with or answer technical scientific questions, but instead deals with matters beyond the realm of science. It seeks to bring us in touch with the eternal God and to reveal the sacred meaning of His being, His purpose and His dealings with us as He works out His holy will. Simply put, the Bible is not trying to tell us exactly HOW or WHEN God did this or that but rather, it is telling us WHY God did this.










1. And God is responsible not just for the origin of all that there is but the entire being of all that is (As Thomas Aquinas wrote in "De potentia dei" (On the Power of God), the only cause of being is the power of God and all natural causes act as instruments of that power).

2. Like other sections of the Bible, Genesis 1 appears more concerned with great Truths rather than mere chronological exactitude which while so important in much of our Western writing is not such a big deal in the Hebrew literary tradition. Topical arrangement or rearrangement is not infrequently found.

For instance, the Temptation accounts recorded in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 provide different orders which are only contradictory if you feel that the authors were concerned with getting the order of the temptations correct rather than emphasizing the fact they took place. Likewise with Psalm. 78 which is intending to stress God’s care of the Israelites but places the smiting of the rock (78:15) before the manna from heaven (vv. 24-25) in contradiction to the account in Exodus 16 and 17. Even the ten plagues are summarized as seven, and in a different order, in Psalm 78:42-51; 105:24-37.

If the author of Genesis 1 was interested in stressing the fact of creation and wasn't overly concerned with its exact chronological sequence of events, then many difficulties are eliminated.

And I'll throw this quote from John H. Walton, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College in as additional food for thought:


If cosmic geology is culturally descriptive rather than revealed truth, it takes its place among many other biblical examples of culturally relative notions. For example, in the ancient world people believed the seat of intelligence, emotion and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidneys and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology. Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. Instead, he adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood. The idea that people think with their hearts describes physiology in ancient terms for the communication of other matters; it is not revelation concerning physiology... Throughout the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture.

seanD
06-21-2014, 05:04 PM
It seems to me Christians need an interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to make sense. It doesn't have to be the RIGHT one, just seems to make sense.


"Makes sense" relative to what though? If you're arguing makes sense against our current understanding of natural laws of the universe, how can that be used as a gauge if our knowledge of the universe is not consummate? History shows our views of the universe constantly change because of this fact.

KingsGambit
06-21-2014, 06:03 PM
By "make sense", do we mean internally consistent, or consistent with external evidence? There is no shortage of explanations that fulfill one of these criteria, but not both.

NormATive
06-21-2014, 06:50 PM
My Tour Guide in Israel said, on more than a few occasions, "If there is a difficult way to do something, the Jewish [sic] will find it". :smile:

LOL! Very true!

NORM

Truthseeker
06-21-2014, 08:20 PM
Actually I do not attribute any significant religious meaning to Genesis at all. I consider it simply as ancient literature describing the world from an ancient perspective over 2500 years ago.

For those seeking a religious perspective I prefer the allegorical Jewish understanding of Genesis. Genesis 1, nor Genesis as whole, is in reality not an important book for Jews. The following link describes it well. Cited is part of the summary.



The religious message is precisely the realm in which science cannot compete, and those devoted to the cause of the Bible would do far better service to their cause by stressing its unique religious message. To the religious person it makes little difference whether the world was created in six days or several billion years.

What counts is the deeper message of the biblical account of creation: The world was made by a wise Creator who seeks man's welfare, who created the world carefully with man's benefit in mind, who created man with Godlike qualities and commanded him to administer the world wisely.

Though we observe the Sabbath every seven days, it is this deeper message which we celebrate each week. The current views of modern science deepen our understanding of this message and renew our confidence in it. Shuny, thank you for posting the summary. Perhaps this thread did need to have that included as a reminder of what is important. But please don't forget I started the thread in the Apologetics forum.

Doug Shaver
06-22-2014, 12:46 AM
It seems to me Christians need an interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to make sense.
It depends on what you mean by making sense. I don't think there is a sensible interpretation that is consistent with any inerrantist dogma. The only sensible interpretation is one that says, "This might not be true, but it could have been what the authors believed."

Truthseeker
06-22-2014, 03:42 PM
To all those posters asking what is meant by "make sense": If, after reading an interpretation of Genesis 1, you feel like saying, "Yeah! That makes sense!"--well, then :shrug: Does this Wikipedia entry "Allegorical interpretations of Genesis" make sense to you for the most part? If not, why not?

Jedidiah
06-22-2014, 06:14 PM
The Allegorical interpretation does not make sense to me. If you want to get some idea of my understanding of Genesis you might look at http://www.reasons.org/. It makes great sense to me.

KingsGambit
06-22-2014, 06:18 PM
An example of what especially does not make sense to me is those interpretations that place Adam and Eve way back in time back tens/hundreds of thousands of years (or even further in some cases). The people in the first few chapters of Genesis are portrayed as Neolithic farmers.

Doug Shaver
06-22-2014, 10:54 PM
Does this Wikipedia entry "Allegorical interpretations of Genesis" make sense to you for the most part? If not, why not?
It's a long article, and I've had time to only skim it. The writer seems to discuss several interpretations without expressing a preference for any particular one.

For an interpretation to make sense to me, I need a reason to think it was the author's intention that his work be so interpreted. I have no reason to suppose that the authors of Genesis expected their readers to think anything other than "This really happened."

whag
06-26-2014, 04:14 PM
Since I've posted this a couple times before I might as well repeat it here...




And I'll throw this quote from John H. Walton, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College in as additional food for thought:


If cosmic geology is culturally descriptive rather than revealed truth, it takes its place among many other biblical examples of culturally relative notions. For example, in the ancient world people believed the seat of intelligence, emotion and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidneys and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology. Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. Instead, he adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood. The idea that people think with their hearts describes physiology in ancient terms for the communication of other matters; it is not revelation concerning physiology... Throughout the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture.


This isn't getting through to conservative Christian leadership and the Christians they're supposed to be edifying

The question, then, is why is there such strong resistance to the idea that Genesis is a story invented for a specific purpose (to quash competing religious ideas that existed at the time) and not actual history? There's a freedom in that interpretation; it removes the cognitive overburden that typically (if you're an average anti-evolution apologist) requires much time and energy to defend--and never successfully. Better to spend that time actually being a Christian and reducing suffering.

whag
06-26-2014, 04:19 PM
"Makes sense" relative to what though? If you're arguing makes sense against our current understanding of natural laws of the universe, how can that be used as a gauge if our knowledge of the universe is not consummate? History shows our views of the universe constantly change because of this fact.

"Makes sense" relative to confirmed knowledge that death antedated human beings, hence no fall.

tabibito
06-28-2014, 04:52 AM
Was creation effected in six days, or in one - as per Genesis 2:4?
Would it be acceptable to consider Genesis 1 and 2 as being analogous to a recipe, with Genesis 1 laying out the ingredients, and Genesis 2 giving the method?
If so, what do we do with the whole "created" thing in Genesis 1? From my point of view, that would be easy enough to deal with - Does "bara" (created) necessarily mean that anything physical was brought into being ... Near as I can tell, once a thing has been conceptualised, it has been created, whether or not any ground work has actually commenced. In the same way, a person may be credited with founding (creating) an organisation or even a city, though work may perhaps not start until some years after the planning is complete, and perhaps even after the founder's death.
With Genesis 2 standing in stark contrast to Genesis 1, it seems to me far-fetched to claim that Genesis 1 describes actual physical construction at any level.
The order of creation in chapter 2 is interesting, with man being created first, before any plants, animals, etc and so forth. Given that chapter 2 records the physical creation of man it would be hard to say that the passage only records conceptualisation ... Further, the man is created, then relocated to Eden - which is according to Septuagint translation (when it is translated rather than transliterated), "paradise."
Again, according to Genesis 2, all recorded creation of living organisms (man excepted) occurs in Eden - what happens elsewhere doesn't rate a mention.
In sum, the Genesis records are not solid enough to declare THIS IS HOW IT WAS DONE. This is WHAT was done is reasonable. Withal, even without any external considerations, reconciling the two records is necessary - and once reconciliation is complete, no opportunity for Genesis 1 to be a point by point factual record remains.

shunyadragon
06-28-2014, 05:08 AM
"Makes sense" relative to confirmed knowledge that death antedated human beings, hence no fall.

Also by the evidence natural suffering of humans and animals is consistent throughout the millions of years of the evolution of life. The bedrock belief in traditional Christianity in the Fall and 'Original Sin' is untenable, and makes Theistic Evolution a contradiction from this perspective.

shunyadragon
06-28-2014, 05:13 AM
Since I've posted this a couple times before I might as well repeat it here...




And I'll throw this quote from John H. Walton, a professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College in as additional food for thought:


If cosmic geology is culturally descriptive rather than revealed truth, it takes its place among many other biblical examples of culturally relative notions. For example, in the ancient world people believed the seat of intelligence, emotion and personhood was in the internal organs, particularly the heart, but also the liver, kidneys and intestines. Many Bible translations use the English word "mind" when the Hebrew text refers to the entrails, showing the ways in which language and culture interrelated. In modern language we still refer to the heart metaphorically as the seat of emotion. In the ancient world this was not metaphor, but physiology. Yet we must notice that when God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. Instead, he adopted the language of the culture to communicate in terms they understood. The idea that people think with their hearts describes physiology in ancient terms for the communication of other matters; it is not revelation concerning physiology... Throughout the entire Bible, there is not a single instance in which God revealed to Israel a science beyond their own culture.


Your long response and quote remains problematic in the light of the fact that the Biblical 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' remain a necessary reality as described in Genesis for the foundation doctrines and dogma of traditional Christianity. The Elephant remains in the room.

JimL
06-28-2014, 06:03 AM
It seems to me Christians need an interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to make sense. It doesn't have to be the RIGHT one, just seems to make sense.

People who have tried to make sense out of Genesis 1 are Oxymixmudd and GRMorton. They had a debate recently, but unfortunately it seems GRMorton is too busy.

A point to keep in mind is that the Lord God is timeless (out of time, if you prefer). Something that from our human perspective occurred in the past and another thing that will soon occur in the future are things that occur all at once from God's perspective. Not a good way to put it, perhaps, but about the best I can explain.

Another point is that God may be frequently anthropomorphized in the Bible, even though that may distort the truth. We humans are simply not able to understand God's nature in human terms.

If you have a favorite interpretation, go ahead, present it here!
My favorite interpretation is that these ancients believed in a God and in creation, but they had no clue and so in their ignorance they made up a story in which their own existence was the whole purpose of the creator and creation. It doesn't make sense from a scientific perspective of course because they had no clue, but we like to think of ourselves as special creations, the world and all else in it being just the place that was created specially for us special beings to live in.

JimL
06-28-2014, 06:31 AM
Your long response and quote remains problematic in the light of the fact that the Biblical 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' remain a necessary reality as described in Genesis for the foundation doctrines and dogma of traditional Christianity. The Elephant remains in the room.
Augustine developed the idea of original sin, the fall of A+ E and so the human race, an idea which really makes no sense, since the sinful nature that is said to have been passed on to all mankind through them, must have been a part of their own original, created nature, else they would not have sinned in the first place. BTW Augustine also claimed that unbaptised infants went straight to hell solely because of their inherited sin nature. Not a very nice God Augustine believed in!

whag
06-28-2014, 07:57 AM
Your long response and quote remains problematic in the light of the fact that the Biblical 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' remain a necessary reality as described in Genesis for the foundation doctrines and dogma of traditional Christianity. The Elephant remains in the room.

It's unfair to expect rogue, or anyone who understands that we came from apelike creatures, to acknowledge that elephant. They must believe in the Eden scenario while knowing the evidence challenges even the allegorical interpretation.

I used to think Christianity demanded faith in the Passion story, but, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it demands faith in the seemingly ancillary dogmas. Can one be a Christian and also believe that death and suffering always existed and was part of The Plan?

shunyadragon
06-28-2014, 02:38 PM
It's unfair to expect rogue, or anyone who understands that we came from apelike creatures, to acknowledge that elephant. They must believe in the Eden scenario while knowing the evidence challenges even the allegorical interpretation.

The elephant remains, regardless of individual interpretations to get around the 'fall' and 'Original Sin,' They remain literally believed, as well as the flood, by the founding fathers of Christianity and the apostles as justification for the necessity of the 'Passion of Christ' in the salvation of humanity. Eden may not be a literal place, nor Adam and Eve be literal real parents of humanity, but the 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' are essential and necessary for Doctrines and Dogmas of the traditional Christian Churches.


I used to think Christianity demanded faith in the Passion story, but, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it demands faith in the seemingly ancillary dogmas. Can one be a Christian and also believe that death and suffering always existed and was part of The Plan?

This may be the belief of some or even many individual Christians, but not the foundation doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Church, Protestant, and the Orthodox churches and this is what they teach worldwide to faithful. There are of course many individual and theological rational justifications for alternatives, bit this not where the reality of the chruchs lie.

shunyadragon
06-28-2014, 02:41 PM
Augustine developed the idea of original sin, the fall of A+ E and so the human race, an idea which really makes no sense, since the sinful nature that is said to have been passed on to all mankind through them, must have been a part of their own original, created nature, else they would not have sinned in the first place. BTW Augustine also claimed that unbaptised infants went straight to hell solely because of their inherited sin nature. Not a very nice God Augustine believed in!

You may blame St. Augustine, but nonetheless it remains essential foundation doctrine and/or dogma of the main line traditional Churches. I also believe the Trinity is an added later Dogma of the Church, but nonetheless in remains in concrete and an unchangeable necessary belief..

rogue06
06-28-2014, 02:47 PM
Your long response and quote remains problematic in the light of the fact that the Biblical 'Fall' and 'Original Sin' remain a necessary reality as described in Genesis for the foundation doctrines and dogma of traditional Christianity. The Elephant remains in the room.
You can still have Original Sin and a Fall without a creation over a literal six consecutive days

whag
06-28-2014, 03:25 PM
You can still have Original Sin and a Fall without a creation over a literal six consecutive days

Can you have the Christian fall with no evidence of an Edenic past? We've always foraged for food and been in the food chain.

KingsGambit
06-28-2014, 03:54 PM
Can you have the Christian fall with no evidence of an Edenic past? We've always foraged for food and been in the food chain.

C.S. Lewis, for one, didn't believe a literal Eden was essential. He did, however, believe in a concrete course of events at some point in time that represented a fall.

http://biologos.org/blog/surprised-by-jack-part-3-mere-depravity

tabibito
06-28-2014, 05:09 PM
I used to think Christianity demanded faith in the Passion story, but, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced it demands faith in the seemingly ancillary dogmas. Can one be a Christian and also believe that death and suffering always existed and was part of The Plan?

Physical death is not an issue. The Biblical records show that the living can be dead and that the dead can be alive. Or if you prefer, that that whether living or dead, a person can be either subjected, or not, to death.
The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge could be wholly allegorical, or given that it is said to have happened in Eden, wholly accurate. With regard to impact on Christian beliefs, only an initial act of disobedience is in any way critical.

Events in Eden are not related to events on Earth. Genesis 5 and 6 need to be taken into account in any real assessment, and that part of the record cannot be accurate. If nothing else, the listed genealogy isn't viable.

If there was a Noah at all, he would necessarily have lived way further into the past than the Bible states. The most recent of a number of somewhat viable rough guesses, based on evidence to hand, would place his life time as at least more than 50 000 years ago.

Truthseeker
06-28-2014, 05:21 PM
Does "bara" (created) necessarily mean that anything physical was brought into being ... Near as I can tell, once a thing has been conceptualised, it has been created, whether or not any ground work has actually commenced. In the same way, a person may be credited with founding (creating) an organisation or even a city, though work may perhaps not start until some years after the planning is complete, and perhaps even after the founder's death.The idea of Ford's Model T car may have been created, but would you say that the millions of Model T cars were then created, before they were built? Anyway, I don't think usually people would consider the conceptualization to be the end of creation.

tabibito
06-28-2014, 06:03 PM
Multitudes of model T's no. Multitudes of cars arising from that same process, maybe. ... in the sense that they were made possible through Ford's invention of the production line.

In Genesis, we have the statement that God made all that is. In John, we have that basic statement repeated - but John provides neither time-frame nor mention of process.
Now just as an exercise in hypotheticals. Let's say that God created, not each species of animal individually - not even representatives of each family, but the genetic precursors that had the potential to evolve into the various species that have existed and exist.
A few viruses or bacteria for example, with genetic codes so ridiculously complex that "evolution" is inevitable (through partial reduplication of that source dna code, and of course, errors in duplication.)
In such circumstances, would it be incorrect to say that God had created all creatures? It would not mean that the people who first handed the story down would have known anything of the details, and they would not have needed to. (note: the most complex genetic codes known belong to the most primitive known plants and bacteria. ... which would sort of make life uncomfortable for the people who claim that evolution is impossible because things don't get more complex.)

The three year old asks, "where do babies come from?" - the answer "mums and dads make them together" satisfies, and is by no means incorrect. But what if the child thinks "making them" involves the same sort of making that occurs in the kitchen. The report that the child hands on might be somewhat incorrectly embellished.
I believe that a number of areas of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, have been slightly muddled in transmission. Though in saying that, I don't claim the same can't be true of the New Testament ... just there was more opportunity with the Old.

whag
06-28-2014, 06:06 PM
Physical death is not an issue. The Biblical records show that the living can be dead and that the dead can be alive. Or if you prefer, that that whether living or dead, a person can be either subjected, or not, to death.
The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge could be wholly allegorical, or given that it is said to have happened in Eden, wholly accurate. With regard to impact on Christian beliefs, only an initial act of disobedience is in any way critical.

It would be unreasonable to expect evolved primates to not misbehave since they are animals with high sex drives and adrenal glands more suited to life on the harsh savannah. That might be the rub.


Events in Eden are not related to events on Earth. Genesis 5 and 6 need to be taken into account in any real assessment, and that part of the record cannot be accurate. If nothing else, the listed genealogy isn't viable.

If there was a Noah at all, he would necessarily have lived way further into the past than the Bible states. The most recent of a number of somewhat viable rough guesses, based on evidence to hand, would place his life time as at least more than 50 000 years ago.

Noah was a neanderthal?

shunyadragon
06-28-2014, 06:09 PM
You can still have Original Sin and a Fall without a creation over a literal six consecutive days

I did not propose that there need be a literal six consecutive day creation to have the Fall and Original Sin. I said that the Fall and Original Sin still are required to be real in history and some way.

shunyadragon
06-28-2014, 06:18 PM
Physical death is not an issue. The Biblical records show that the living can be dead and that the dead can be alive. Or if you prefer, that that whether living or dead, a person can be either subjected, or not, to death.
The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge could be wholly allegorical, or given that it is said to have happened in Eden, wholly accurate. With regard to impact on Christian beliefs, only an initial act of disobedience is in any way critical.

Events in Eden are not related to events on Earth. Genesis 5 and 6 need to be taken into account in any real assessment, and that part of the record cannot be accurate. If nothing else, the listed genealogy isn't viable.

If there was a Noah at all, he would necessarily have lived way further into the past than the Bible states. The most recent of a number of somewhat viable rough guesses, based on evidence to hand, would place his life time as at least more than 50 000 years ago.

Well trying to fit this scenario into a hypothetical history, ie 50,000 year old flood is really stretching things based on the physical evidence and real history from the paleolithic to the present. There is no evidence for an adequate flood to fit the description in Genesis on a regional or world level.Despite all the efforts to force square pegs in round holes, it just does not work. Genesis is simply ancient literature describing a world from an ancient perspective, and the elephant in the room remains.

'Viable rough guesses?!?!?!?!?'

Doug Shaver
06-28-2014, 06:19 PM
Withal, even without any external considerations, reconciling the two records is necessary
Only if you presuppose that the two records must be consistent.

tabibito
06-28-2014, 07:43 PM
Noah was a neanderthal? There is something in the Bible requiring that a man be H.Sap? But the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils date back more than 160 000 - 200 000 years.


50,000 year old flood is really stretching things based on the physical evidence and real history from the paleolithic to the present. What is needed to fit well enough is a cataclysmic event with associated flooding that came close to wiping out all humanity. If it was more or less localised, it would necessarily have occurred prior to dispersion of humans over any particularly wide area. 50 000 years ago, humans began to disperse, prior to 60 000 years ago, humans ranged a small area a little ways south of the mouth of the red sea. Around 59-60 000 years ago, humanity came close to being wiped out.


'Viable rough guesses?!?!?!?!?' Nothing better can be provided with the data currently available.

Truthseeker
06-28-2014, 08:21 PM
Well trying to fit this scenario into a hypothetical history, ie 50,000 year old flood is really stretching things based on the physical evidence and real history from the paleolithic to the present. There is no evidence for an adequate flood to fit the description in Genesis on a regional or world level.Despite all the efforts to force square pegs in round holes, it just does not work.Quit discouraging people. Either lurk or unsubscribe if you have nothing positive to contribute here. Finding a reasonable way to square science with Genesis could be impossible, but I very much doubt you really know.

robrecht
06-28-2014, 08:37 PM
Can you have the Christian fall with no evidence of an Edenic past? We've always foraged for food and been in the food chain.
Sure. There is an ancient theology found in the Cappadocian fathers in the East, Irenaeus and the Franciscans in the West, which, while never dominant, especially in the West, was very different from the Augustinian theology of the original sin. It is sometimes referred to as 'primacy of the Incarnation', whereby it was always God's plan to be eventually united with (an evolving) humanity, thus this incarnational impulse of God towards humanity was not caused or necessitated by Adam's sin. Mythologically, it was sometimes said that this eternal incarnational plan of God was the reason for the jealous rebellion of the fallen angels that brought evil into creation, all prior to the creation of man. This ancient idea was fleshed out and combined with evolutionary theory by the Anglican priest Frederick Robert Tennant (1866-1957) and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ (1881–1955).

shunyadragon
06-29-2014, 04:37 AM
Quit discouraging people. Either lurk or unsubscribe if you have nothing positive to contribute here. Finding a reasonable way to square science with Genesis could be impossible, but I very much doubt you really know.

The above does not present a meaningful response to the problem. The elephant remains in the room.

There is no reason to believe that the 'Fall' could be 'squared' with science. The problem is anchoring a foundation dogma like the 'Fall' in ancient mythical literature. This reflects predominant view in Judaism that the Genesis account is allegorical, and the Wisdom of Genesis is in the interpretive inner meaning.

shunyadragon
06-29-2014, 04:52 AM
What is needed to fit well enough is a cataclysmic event with associated flooding that came close to wiping out all humanity. If it was more or less localised, it would necessarily have occurred prior to dispersion of humans over any particularly wide area. 50 000 years ago, humans began to disperse, prior to 60 000 years ago, humans ranged a small area a little ways south of the mouth of the red sea. Around 59-60 000 years ago, humanity came close to being wiped out.

What is called the 'bottleneck' near extinction event is most likely related to a volcanic event 70,000 years ago or other causes going back to 100,000 years ago:

[The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000 individuals[3] when the Toba super volcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidence of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidence of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation in humans.[3]

However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not, in itself, indicate a population bottleneck, because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the entire genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Genetic material inherited exclusively from either father or mother can be traced back in time via either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[5] Research on many genes finds different coalescence points from 2 million years ago to 60,000 years ago when different genes are considered, thus disproving the existence of more recent extreme bottlenecks (i.e., a single breeding pair).[3][6]

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.



Nothing better can be provided with the data currently available.

There is in the above reference. The problem is that there is a complete lack of evidence for any viable flood event. At present, the best evidence for the origin of the Genesis literature is older pre-Babylonian cuneiform texts that most likely describe local flood events in the Tigris - Euphrates valley. In fact there is abundant evidence that much of the Pentateuch and the Psalms originate from these texts.

tabibito
06-29-2014, 07:14 AM
If there was a Noah at all, he would necessarily have lived way further into the past than the Bible states. The most recent of a number of somewhat viable rough guesses, based on evidence to hand, would place his life time as at least more than 50 000 years ago.
Rephrasing - If there was a person approximating to Noah, he cannot have lived less than 50 000 years ago, and (that being the most recent of possibilities) maybe a lot more distant in time than 50000 years ago.
And yes, since the last time I checked data, 60 000 years ago seemingly has been ruled out of contention, so it would have to be even further into the past.

Truthseeker
06-29-2014, 10:50 AM
Does anyone need to be reminded more than once that lack of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence? Also, claims are being made for which no citation of authorative literature is invoked. I wish Shunyadragon would unsubscribe. That is NOT a wish he will NOT start a thread with a title like, "My 1,001 reasons why science cannot be squared with Genesis."

seanD
06-29-2014, 11:31 AM
You can still have Original Sin and a Fall without a creation over a literal six consecutive days

Can the same argument be made for death in conjunction with Paul's argument in 1 Cor 15 and the evolution of lower primates?

KingsGambit
06-29-2014, 11:42 AM
Can the same argument be made for death in conjunction with Paul's argument in 1 Cor 15 and the evolution of lower primates?

Yes... a popular book just came out largely dealing with that issue (The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns).

whag
06-29-2014, 01:05 PM
Yes... a popular book just came out largely dealing with that issue (The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns).

What does Enns say about it?

seanD
06-29-2014, 01:14 PM
Yes... a popular book just came out largely dealing with that issue (The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns).

Without knowing what his argument is, the only way one could reconcile evolution of lower primates and Paul's argument is to claim that Paul was wrong either in how he interpreted death as described in Genesis or Genesis as a whole. The only other argument would be that Paul knew Genesis was allegory and was thus expounding on that allegory. The latter is highly unlikely. There would have been no reason for an ancient not believe Genesis was true history, as there was no other explanation they had for the origin of man.

whag
06-29-2014, 01:16 PM
C.S. Lewis, for one, didn't believe a literal Eden was essential. He did, however, believe in a concrete course of events at some point in time that represented a fall.

http://biologos.org/blog/surprised-by-jack-part-3-mere-depravity

I wonder why Lewis protracts the fall. Presumably, it's too acknowledge a first set of human beings doesn't seem realistic, but then he says Eden was real:


Finally, it should be noted that Lewis was not even committed to the most basic element of a belief in a literal Adam and Eve, namely, that it was precisely two humans who fell and from whence our species came. He writes, “We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state.

He straddled the line between myth and history unnecessarily. There are many problems with believing human beings were especially protected initially--the least of which being that labor is natural. We have always labored, especially in taking down big beasts. The Edenic view has just as many problems as the First Couple view.

robrecht
06-29-2014, 01:20 PM
Without knowing what his argument is, the only way one could reconcile evolution of lower primates and Paul's argument is to claim that Paul was wrong either in how he interpreted death as described in Genesis or Genesis as a whole. The only other argument would be that Paul knew Genesis was allegory and was thus expounding on that allegory. The latter is highly unlikely. There would have been no reason for an ancient not believe Genesis was true history, as there was no other explanation they had for the origin of man. Assuming Paul or other ancients read Genesis 1-3 in Hebrew, they would have good reason to suspect that elements were intended as an imaginative and symbolic story, and we see lots of very creative midrash upon this text by the ancient rabbis.

seanD
06-29-2014, 01:32 PM
Assuming Paul or other ancients read Genesis 1-3 in Hebrew, they would have good reason to suspect that elements were intended as an imaginative and symbolic story, and we see lots of very creative midrash upon this text by the ancient rabbis.

Even so, I still don't see how the argument can be made that Paul didn't really think it was history if he had no other alternative explanation for the origin of man. Secondly, his argument wasn't being made to Jews familiar with midrash, but Greeks that were familiar with philosophies that repudiated physical mortal bodies, and it was in the context of a real historical event, the resurrection of Christ. He was using Adam's fall to support the necessity of a real physical event, the resurrection of Christ.

Scrawly
06-29-2014, 01:44 PM
Without knowing what his argument is, the only way one could reconcile evolution of lower primates and Paul's argument is to claim that Paul was wrong either in how he interpreted death as described in Genesis or Genesis as a whole. The only other argument would be that Paul knew Genesis was allegory and was thus expounding on that allegory. The latter is highly unlikely. There would have been no reason for an ancient not believe Genesis was true history, as there was no other explanation they had for the origin of man.

But didn't God accommodate His revelation to a people with a comparatively primitive worldview? Don't you think its probable - highly likely even - that Paul thought the earth was flat and held to a 3-tiered view of the cosmos as well?

seanD
06-29-2014, 01:48 PM
But didn't God accommodate His revelation to a people with a comparatively primitive worldview? Don't you think its probable - highly likely even - that Paul thought the earth was flat and held to a 3-tiered view of the cosmos as well?

I don't really know what Paul thought about the earth, as there is no indication in his letters about the subject. But had Paul based his theology on that notion, then I would also consider it a problem, though it would be a far greater problem.

whag
06-29-2014, 02:57 PM
There is something in the Bible requiring that a man be H.Sap? But the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils date back more than 160 000 - 200 000 years.

Wine doesn't go back to 50,000 BC.


What is needed to fit well enough is a cataclysmic event with associated flooding that came close to wiping out all humanity. If it was more or less localised, it would necessarily have occurred prior to dispersion of humans over any particularly wide area. 50 000 years ago, humans began to disperse, prior to 60 000 years ago, humans ranged a small area a little ways south of the mouth of the red sea. Around 59-60 000 years ago, humanity came close to being wiped out.

Yes, by a volcano, not a flood. Also, neanderthals and cromags were already in Europe 150,000 years ago, which means they had already dispersed and were safe from being killed by a local flood occurring thousands of miles away.


Nothing better can be provided with the data currently available.

Nothing better can be provided because we have the data showing your hypothesis is implausible. Wine wasn't invented 50,000 years ago, and the humanoid creatures you suggest Noah was (cromags, neanderthals) were already far away from the Red Sea 150,000 years ago.

robrecht
06-29-2014, 03:05 PM
Even so, I still don't see how the argument can be made that Paul didn't really think it was history if he had no other alternative explanation for the origin of man. Secondly, his argument wasn't being made to Jews familiar with midrash, but Greeks that were familiar with philosophies that repudiated physical mortal bodies, and it was in the context of a real historical event, the resurrection of Christ. He was using Adam's fall to support the necessity of a real physical event, the resurrection of Christ.Can you spell out exactly what you think the logical flow of his argument was and how it necessarily depended upon a non-midrashic understanding of Genesis 1-3?

I think Paul uses midrash rather frequently even when he is addressing predominantly Gentile audiences, including the Corinthians (eg, 1 Cor 9,8-12 qal wa homer twice; 1 Cor 10,1-5; 2 Cor 3,6-18 qal wa homer 2 Cor 4,3-6 2 Cor 11,1-5.13-14 2 Cor 12,2-4). Specifically, in 1 Cor 15, we see Paul's use of figurative language relating to the clothing of Adam. At the time of resurrection we will be 'clothed with incorruptibility' (ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν 1 Cor 15,53-54) similar to the midrashic theme of Adam's ‘garment of immortality’ (ἔνδυμα τῆς ἀθανασίας) that was originally his prior to the Fall (Hist Rech 12,3 (http://ocp.tyndale.ca/history-of-the-rechabites#12-12)).

It seems to me this is figurative, not necessarily literal, language, 'though I do not think there can be any kind of proof of this reading of Paul.

seanD
06-29-2014, 03:16 PM
Can you spell out exactly what you think the logical flow of his argument was and how it necessarily depended upon a non-midrashic understanding of Genesis 1-3?

I think Paul uses midrash rather frequently even when he is addressing predominantly Gentile audiences, including the Corinthians (eg, 1 Cor 9,8-12 qal wa homer twice; 1 Cor 10,1-5; 2 Cor 3,6-18 qal wa homer 2 Cor 4,3-6 2 Cor 11,1-5.13-14 2 Cor 12,2-4). Specifically, in 1 Cor 15, we see Paul's use of figurative language relating to the clothing of Adam. At the time of resurrection we will be 'clothed with incorruptibility' (ἐνδύσασθαι ἀθανασίαν 1 Cor 15,53-54) similar to the midrashic theme of Adam's ‘garment of immortality’ (ἔνδυμα τῆς ἀθανασίας) that was originally his prior to the Fall (Hist Rech 12,3 (http://ocp.tyndale.ca/history-of-the-rechabites#12-12)).

It seems to me this is figurative, not necessarily literal, language, 'though I do not think there can be any kind of proof of this reading of Paul.

I have no problem with figurative language, but I don't see how this relates to what Paul believed about the origins of man, unless you're argument is that Paul didn't really believe this would be an actual future event. He was using colorful language in the example you gave to describe our transformation from mortal to immortal at the resurrection, but I'm sure Paul believed this would be an actual future occurrence to our physical bodies, just like he believed Adam was a historical figure from which death came, which necessitated the resurrection.

tabibito
06-29-2014, 04:23 PM
Noah was a neanderthal? To which I commented that the Bible did not require that Noah be H. Sap Sap. Then again, it is kind of hard to understand why you would have made that comment when H Sap Sap has been around for (more or less confirmed, and roughly) 200 000 years with indicators that 250 000+ years is not impossible.


your hypothesis is implausible.When did I advance any hypothesis?
If there was a Noah at all I stated that sort of hypothesis would be necessary.

robrecht
06-29-2014, 04:51 PM
I have no problem with figurative language, but I don't see how this relates to what Paul believed about the origins of man, unless you[']re argument is that Paul didn't really believe this would be an actual future event. He was using colorful language in the example you gave to describe our transformation from mortal to immortal at the resurrection, but I'm sure Paul believed this would be an actual future occurrence to our physical bodies, just like he believed Adam was a historical figure from which death came, which necessitated the resurrection.No, of course I am not arguing that Paul did not believe that there would not be a future resurrection, but elements of the future were certainly beyond his ability to describe and he freely acknowledged this. Assuming Paul read Hebrew, he would have considered Adam (old and new) more than just a historical figure, indeed a representational corporate figure, necessarily described with figurative and poetic language that in the Hebrew and Aramaic traditions was highly malleable. In midrash, one could stretch the texts, events and persons to suit the message, sometimes in ways that were directly contrary to each other, but the truth was somehow greater than any single literal reading among many others. Their sense of history and the multiple elastic traditions of interpretation were very creative and very different from what we mean by history today. To what extent they might have also had something resembling a modern view of history alongside their midrashic traditions, we cannot really say, but I would not necessarily read that sense of history into Paul's language here.

whag
06-29-2014, 05:01 PM
To which I commented that the Bible did not require that Noah be H. Sap Sap. Then again, it is kind of hard to understand why you would have made that comment when H Sap Sap has been around for (more or less confirmed, and roughly) 200 000 years with indicators that 250 000+ years is not impossible.

Right, and like I said, homo sapiens were already in Europe...meaning they were dispersed at least 100,000 years before you said the flood would have occured. So what's the flood for?


When did I advance any hypothesis? I stated that sort of hypothesis would be necessary.

If the flood was local 50,000 years ago, it couldn't have wiped out humanity. Humanity wasn't concentrated in one geography. It's a wonky hypothesis.

Truthseeker
06-29-2014, 08:29 PM
It's true, the truth is always greater than any statement advanced as a statement of truth. Thank you, robrecht http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2486-Interpret-Genesis-1-to-make-sense&p=72755&viewfull=1#post72755

KingsGambit
06-29-2014, 09:40 PM
What does Enns say about it?

As a stepping point, he points out that Paul, like other Jews of his day, did not feel bound to what we would consider modern uses of the Old Testament when making references/allusions but rather used what we might term creative interpretation. (This is less controversial.) He then argues that "the authors of Scripture are not inspired by God to speak from a safe distance from their culture. Rather, God works in and through writers from within their time and place in human history" and that his use of the Old Testament is first and foremost theological as a vessel to convey the truth about Jesus.

tabibito
06-29-2014, 11:22 PM
Note: Artifactual evidence indicates that modern humans were in Europe by at least 40,000 and possibly as
early as 46,000 years ago. Dating of the earliest modern human fossils in Asia is less secure, but it is likely
that they were present there by at least 60,000 years ago and possibly 100,000 years ago.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm

Given that the site information was updated after Nov 21 2013, I will assume that your information about h. sap. sap. presence in Europe more than 50 000 years ago is incorrect. However, H Sap Sap presence in Asia more than 60 000 years ago would quite naturally force any possibility of a Noah to a time earlier than 60 000 years ago - or whatever time frame might eventually be established as showing a presence in Asia.

Again, there are factors critical to any possibility of *a* Noah existing. Given that no geological record of a world encompassing flood exists, it would necessarily be a local (but reasonably extensive) flood - or natural disaster accompanied by flooding. (Off shore volcano + tsunami + nasty hurricane or such would more than adequately fit the bill.)
The event would need to have come close to wiping out all of h. sap. sap.
That means it would necessarily have occurred prior to any large scale dispersion.

If that can be shown from the geological record not to be possible, Noah becomes an outright myth, rather than a possibly embellished historical record.

Aside from wanting to know the reasonableness of possibilities, I really don't have an axe to grind when it comes to Biblical inerrancy ... (well, except that the "Bible has no errors" story got blown out of the water long since and is therefore something of an embarrassment.)

whag
06-30-2014, 06:15 AM
Given that the site information was updated after Nov 21 2013, I will assume that your information about h. sap. sap. presence in Europe more than 50 000 years ago is incorrect. However, H Sap Sap presence in Asia more than 60 000 years ago would quite naturally force any possibility of a Noah to a time earlier than 60 000 years ago - or whatever time frame might eventually be established as showing a presence in Asia.

Bones from humans have been found in Europe as early as 300,000-100,000 years ago. My point was what's the point of a local flood if human beings are already establishing themselves elsewhere. The whole purpose of the deluge was to kill human beings and start over with Noah. It's kind of hard to do that if humankind was already getting a foothold in Asia and Europe.


Again, there are factors critical to any possibility of *a* Noah existing. Given that no geological record of a world encompassing flood exists, it would necessarily be a local (but reasonably extensive) flood - or natural disaster accompanied by flooding. (Off shore volcano + tsunami + nasty hurricane or such would more than adequately fit the bill.)
The event would need to have come close to wiping out all of h. sap. sap.
That means it would necessarily have occurred prior to any large scale dispersion.

If that can be shown from the geological record not to be possible, Noah becomes an outright myth, rather than a possibly embellished historical record

It's definitely a myth for those reasons. History wasn't recorded in the stone age, so it surely isn't embellished historical record.


Aside from wanting to know the reasonableness of possibilities, I really don't have an axe to grind when it comes to Biblical inerrancy ... (well, except that the "Bible has no errors" story got blown out of the water long since and is therefore something of an embarrassment.)

It isn't just a matter of saying anatomically modern human beings existed back then. You're glossing over the other elements of the story and saying it's just about a flood and a boat.

whag
06-30-2014, 06:32 AM
As a stepping point, he points out that Paul, like other Jews of his day, did not feel bound to what we would consider modern uses of the Old Testament when making references/allusions but rather used what we might term creative interpretation. (This is less controversial.) He then argues that "the authors of Scripture are not inspired by God to speak from a safe distance from their culture. Rather, God works in and through writers from within their time and place in human history" and that his use of the Old Testament is first and foremost theological as a vessel to convey the truth about Jesus.

A lot of the old testament doesn't convey any truth about Jesus, which forced some of the NT authors to apply verses to him that shouldn't have been applied. That's an amazing amount of license they were given, and at what cost today?

shunyadragon
06-30-2014, 09:13 AM
A lot of the old testament doesn't convey any truth about Jesus, which forced some of the NT authors to apply verses to him that shouldn't have been applied. That's an amazing amount of license they were given, and at what cost today?

Correct!!

KingsGambit
06-30-2014, 10:18 AM
A lot of the old testament doesn't convey any truth about Jesus, which forced some of the NT authors to apply verses to him that shouldn't have been applied. That's an amazing amount of license they were given, and at what cost today?

This, the use of typology, was regular Jewish practice at that time (and also practiced to a lesser extent by non-Jewish peoples) so judging this by our own standards of argumentation seems a bit unfair, if anachronistic. Now I will grant that many modern Christians are ignorant of this, and this can be seen by how many of them attempt to appeal to messianic prophecy in a probablistic manner. But this doesn't make NT use of typology wrong.

seanD
06-30-2014, 10:40 AM
This, the use of typology, was regular Jewish practice at that time (and also practiced to a lesser extent by non-Jewish peoples) so judging this by our own standards of argumentation seems a bit unfair, if anachronistic. Now I will grant that many modern Christians are ignorant of this, and this can be seen by how many of them attempt to appeal to messianic prophecy in a probablistic manner. But this doesn't make NT use of typology wrong.

It wasn't just a common practice, rabbis (as well as those of Qumran community) used this method to identify what they believed was the future appearance of messiah prior to Jesus, in fact, because they identified two distinct messianic persona, they interpreted it as two messiahs that would appear (ben Joseph and ben David). Many of the same passages Christians used were applied to messiah prior to his appearance. NT authors, many of whom were Jewish, were merely following the methodology they knew from the same culture.

whag
06-30-2014, 11:19 AM
This, the use of typology, was regular Jewish practice at that time (and also practiced to a lesser extent by non-Jewish peoples) so judging this by our own standards of argumentation seems a bit unfair, if anachronistic. Now I will grant that many modern Christians are ignorant of this, and this can be seen by how many of them attempt to appeal to messianic prophecy in a probablistic manner. But this doesn't make NT use of typology wrong.

Granted. Maybe those modern Christians are uncomfortable having to admit the prophecies have nothing to do with Jesus. That it was an accepted worldly practice doesn't make it any easier for Christians who were taught those prophecies wereinspired.

seanD
06-30-2014, 11:27 AM
Granted. Maybe those modern Christians are uncomfortable having to admit the prophecies have nothing to do with Jesus. That it was an accepted worldly practice doesn't make it any easier for Christians who were taught those prophecies wereinspired.

KH unfortunately downplayed the reality of it. It wasn't just a common methodology they were following. Jewish thought had laid out the messianic blueprint prior to Christianity that early Christians were expounding on.

whag
06-30-2014, 11:31 AM
KH unfortunately downplayed the reality of it. It wasn't just a common methodology they were following. Jewish thought had laid out the messianic blueprint prior to Christianity that early Christians were expounding on.

And as a result, Christians believe that there are prophecies about Jesus that aren't about Jesus.

seanD
06-30-2014, 11:33 AM
And as a result, Christians believe that there are prophecies about Jesus that aren't about Jesus.

Well, yeah, that's a given. You believe Christianity is false so naturally that would be your assertion. I was just clarifying the history of it so others would have a better understanding of its origins.

KingsGambit
06-30-2014, 12:38 PM
I don't really know what Paul thought about the earth, as there is no indication in his letters about the subject. But had Paul based his theology on that notion, then I would also consider it a problem, though it would be a far greater problem.

Didn't you maintain in another thread that Paul was simply wrong in Romans 13 (theologically speaking)? So if that was permissible, why would this be a problem (especially if here we're just talking about the referent and not Paul's main theological point)?

seanD
06-30-2014, 01:29 PM
Didn't you maintain in another thread that Paul was simply wrong in Romans 13 (theologically speaking)? So if that was permissible, why would this be a problem (especially if here we're just talking about the referent and not Paul's main theological point)?

The origin of human death and the necessity of atonement to solve that issue in Paul's explanation.

(just to clarify, I believe Romans 13 was said in an exceptional context and is why it was so outrageous, which would steer off into a whole different topic).

Truthseeker
06-30-2014, 04:19 PM
Given that the site information was updated after Nov 21 2013, I will assume that your information about h. sap. sap. presence in Europe more than 50 000 years ago is incorrect. However, H Sap Sap presence in Asia more than 60 000 years ago would quite naturally force any possibility of a Noah to a time earlier than 60 000 years ago - or whatever time frame might eventually be established as showing a presence in Asia.

Again, there are factors critical to any possibility of *a* Noah existing. Given that no geological record of a world encompassing flood exists, it would necessarily be a local (but reasonably extensive) flood - or natural disaster accompanied by flooding. (Off shore volcano + tsunami + nasty hurricane or such would more than adequately fit the bill.)
The event would need to have come close to wiping out all of h. sap. sap.
That means it would necessarily have occurred prior to any large scale dispersion.

If that can be shown from the geological record not to be possible, Noah becomes an outright myth, rather than a possibly embellished historical record.

Aside from wanting to know the reasonableness of possibilities, I really don't have an axe to grind when it comes to Biblical inerrancy ... (well, except that the "Bible has no errors" story got blown out of the water long since and is therefore something of an embarrassment.)When I started this thread I had not thought there would be so many hostile people posting stuff contrary to what my opening post asked for. Shunyadragon, for example. Yet again a thread running off the rails.

Oh, well. Looking for Glenn R. Morton's Mediterranean Deluge theory online, I chanced upon this National Geographic promo
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

Of course people may criticize it. Whatever is proposed should make some sense even to fair-minded skeptics, after all.

whag
06-30-2014, 04:31 PM
When I started this thread I had not thought there would be so many hostile people posting stuff contrary to what my opening post asked for. Shunyadragon, for example. Yet again a thread running off the rails.

Oh, well. Looking for Glenn R. Morton's Mediterranean Deluge theory online, I chanced upon this National Geographic promo
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

Of course people may criticize it. Whatever is proposed should make some sense even to fair-minded skeptics, after all.

To be fair, Genesis 1 isn't the only issue teleologically. After that is made sense of, there's still 2-6 to contend with.

tabibito
06-30-2014, 05:18 PM
To be fair, Genesis 1 isn't the only issue teleologically. After that is made sense of, there's still 2-6 to contend with.

True that.

shunyadragon
06-30-2014, 06:33 PM
When I started this thread I had not thought there would be so many hostile people posting stuff contrary to what my opening post asked for. Shunyadragon, for example. Yet again a thread running off the rails.

Oh, well. Looking for Glenn R. Morton's Mediterranean Deluge theory online, I chanced upon this National Geographic promo
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/

Of course people may criticize it. Whatever is proposed should make some sense even to fair-minded skeptics, after all.

The Black Sea flood, and other ancient flood stories is grasping at straws as far as justifying the Biblical flood. There are very good explanations for local flood accounts to explain these, which likely appear as the world is flooded from the local perspective. The trouble with equating the many local and regional floods as a world flood there is no geologic evidence for such an event worldwide or regionally within a reasonable time frame. The Black Sea flood is to old to be reasonably handed down as a Bronze Age flood to account for the Biblical flood.

whag
06-30-2014, 07:34 PM
The Black Sea flood, and other ancient flood stories is grasping at straws as far as justifying the Biblical flood. There are very good explanations for local flood accounts to explain these, which likely appear as the world is flooded from the local perspective. The trouble with equating the many local and regional floods as a world flood there is no geologic evidence for such an event worldwide or regionally within a reasonable time frame. The Black Sea flood is to old to be reasonably handed down as a Bronze Age flood to account for the Biblical flood.

Actually, some Christian theists posit that Noah lived 50,000 years ago.

Besides, human dispersion was already well underway 12,000 years ago and much more distributed in the Bronze Age. What would a local flood accomplish, exactly, if human beings weren't in one locality?

KingsGambit
06-30-2014, 08:22 PM
Besides, human dispersion was already well underway 12,000 years ago and much more distributed in the Bronze Age. What would a local flood accomplish, exactly, if human beings weren't in one locality?

This was the very sticking point that led me to the framework hypothesis view. One could take the tack that the dispersion was local in nature as well but that seems difficult to textually justify.

whag
06-30-2014, 09:05 PM
This was the very sticking point that led me to the framework hypothesis view. One could take the tack that the dispersion was local in nature as well but that seems difficult to textually justify.

A lot of people harp on the geology, but the anthropology is far more interesting. Primitive human beings were brave, adventurous, and cooperative. They'd have to be to traverse those distances.

shunyadragon
07-01-2014, 04:31 AM
A lot of people harp on the geology, but the anthropology is far more interesting. Primitive human beings were brave, adventurous, and cooperative. They'd have to be to traverse those distances.

Yes, anthropology is more interesting, unless your a geologist. Geologists know in detail the signature of floods on many scales. The known regional floods did occur during and at the end of the last glaciation of the northern hemisphere. There just is not any scenario that remotely fit the Biblical flood on any scale, except myths of memories of flooding of river valleys and possibly tsunamis in very recent history, which would appear to locally catastrophic.

The reality of the text source evidence remains that much of the Pentateuch and likely the Psalms originates from pre-Babylonian cuniform tablets, evolving from an older polytheist culture to monotheist Jewish post exile culture. This type of natural evolution of religious text and beliefs is actually a world wide phenomenon, and makes the claim of some specific special Revelation highly unlikely. As in the Orient, this also includes the evolution from human and animal sacrifice, to symbolic sacrifice.

If God exists, the Baha'i view of Progressive Revelation reflects the evidence where the religions reflect a universal evolving spiritual cyclic nature of humanity toward a spiritual civilization through Revelation. The religions then reflect the human perspective of this evolving process The other alternative that works is the atheist/agnostic view that this process simply reflects a very natural human process of the evolution of behavior.

whag
07-01-2014, 06:25 AM
Yes, anthropology is more interesting, unless your a geologist. Geologists know in detail the signature of floods on many scales. The known regional floods did occur during and at the end of the last glaciation of the northern hemisphere. There just is not any scenario that remotely fit the Biblical flood on any scale, except myths of memories of flooding of river valleys and possibly tsunamis in very recent history, which would appear to locally catastrophic.

The reality of the text source evidence remains that much of the Pentateuch and likely the Psalms originates from pre-Babylonian cuniform tablets, evolving from an older polytheist culture to monotheist Jewish post exile culture. This type of natural evolution of religious text and beliefs is actually a world wide phenomenon, and makes the claim of some specific special Revelation highly unlikely. As in the Orient, this also includes the evolution from human and animal sacrifice, to symbolic sacrifice.

If God exists, the Baha'i view of Progressive Revelation reflects the evidence where the religions reflect a universal evolving spiritual cyclic nature of humanity toward a spiritual civilization through Revelation. The religions then reflect the human perspective of this evolving process The other alternative that works is the atheist/agnostic view that this process simply reflects a very natural human process of the evolution of behavior.

Geology is awesome, but it tends to make unfamiliar people zone out. Frankly, your average Joe and Jane think about their redemption more than rocks. In most cases, it's best to focus our argument on our fascinating ancestors who explored the earth TENS OF THOUSANDS years prior to monotheism. That's very effective in changing their perspective on early human beings as noble and brave rather than debauched and worthy of drowning (ever their babies).

shunyadragon
07-01-2014, 06:49 AM
Geology is awesome, but it tends to make unfamiliar people zone out. Frankly, your average Joe and Jane think about their redemption more than rocks. In most cases, it's best to focus our argument on our fascinating ancestors who explored the earth TENS OF THOUSANDS years prior to monotheism. That's very effective in changing their perspective on early human beings as noble and brave rather than debauched and worthy of drowning (ever their babies).

I like the paleoanthropology and anthropology approach, like geology it works. The problem for the Layman and even some academics with Christian theist bent is two fold: First, 'What is human?' and 'What time frame is reasonable for the flood to be real and be in Bronze/Iron Age literature as some kind of special Revelation?'

Even rational well qualified Geologists like GR Morton propose an unreasonable solution trying to make things fit a special Revelation Biblical scenario based on anthropology, and flood geology.

There are just too many elephants in the room to make Genesis1-6 remotely work in terms of a special Revelation to base the foundation of Christian theology and dogma. It represents classical ancient mythical literature, plan and simple.

tabibito
07-01-2014, 07:51 AM
I like the paleoanthropology and anthropology approach, like geology it works. The problem for the Layman and even some academics with Christian theist bent is two fold: First, 'What is human?' and 'What time frame is reasonable for the flood to be real and be in Bronze/Iron Age literature as some kind of special Revelation?'

Even rational well qualified Geologists like GR Morton propose an unreasonable solution trying to make things fit a special Revelation Biblical scenario based on anthropology, and flood geology.

There are just too many elephants in the room to make Genesis1-6 remotely work in terms of a special Revelation to base the foundation of Christian theology and dogma. It represents classical ancient mythical literature, plan and simple.

In all probability, you are correct, but the highly improbable isn't quite impossible. Now - if we had two clear cut references to the flood of Noah (not just references to the time of Noah, but matching descriptions of events, by two or more independent Biblical authors) I would be inclined to say that the ASSESSMENT of the geological record is flawed: IF there were two independent witnesses, I would be saying that the science has failed to take note of some critical factor.

shunyadragon
07-01-2014, 12:50 PM
In all probability, you are correct, but the highly improbable isn't quite impossible. Now - if we had two clear cut references to the flood of Noah (not just references to the time of Noah, but matching descriptions of events, by two or more independent Biblical authors) I would be inclined to say that the ASSESSMENT of the geological record is flawed: IF there were two independent witnesses, I would be saying that the science has failed to take note of some critical factor.

We lack any independent references, and witnesses. What sort of Independent references or witnesses would you propose to support the reality of a flood? Arguing the hypothetical has little or no value. It would very very unlikely, likely impossible, for the geologic knowledge in this case to be in error. The current knowledge of the sedimentary rocks, recent sediment

tabibito
07-01-2014, 01:06 PM
Not arguing a hypothetical. Independent authors would need to bear the stamp of being authorised to speak for God.
The point is that without two independent attested witnesses, we have no assurance that a given claim is accurate.
That is to say, just because it is in the Bible is not good enough.

whag
07-01-2014, 05:37 PM
Not arguing a hypothetical. Independent authors would need to bear the stamp of being authorised to speak for God.

What would that stamp look like?

Truthseeker
07-01-2014, 05:47 PM
rational well qualified Geologists like GR Morton propose an unreasonable solution trying to make things fit a special Revelation Biblical scenario based on anthropology, and flood geology.I am beginning to be fed up with your naysaying. Anyway, please discuss Morton's proposal in detail, without any unsupported opinion. If you don't do that but post yet more naysaying, I may ask you to stop posting here.

shunyadragon
07-01-2014, 06:45 PM
I am beginning to be fed up with your naysaying. Anyway, please discuss Morton's proposal in detail, without any unsupported opinion. If you don't do that but post yet more naysaying, I may ask you to stop posting here.

Being 'fed up with me' is like 'hating math,' You may request I not post, because it is your thread.

I will as you request give my reasons for rejecting GR Morton's hypothesis that the Black Sea flood was the flood of Genesis.

Doug Shaver
07-01-2014, 08:34 PM
but the highly improbable isn't quite impossible.
Good point.


IF there were two independent witnesses, I would be saying that the science has failed to take note of some critical factor.
I might say the same thing. But I doubt that you and I mean the same thing when we call someone a witness.

Truthseeker
07-02-2014, 10:21 AM
I will as you request give my reasons for rejecting GR Morton's hypothesis that the Black Sea flood was the flood of Genesis.You got it wrong, that is Ballard's theory. Here's the link for that, again:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/
This one below is for Glenn's Mediterranean theory

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF12-97Morton.html
I do not know if Glenn has updated or corrected that.

It is Genesis 6-9, not Genesis 1, but including that may help us find a way or get some practice exercising our wits, maybe.

tabibito
07-02-2014, 10:27 AM
What would that stamp look like?

Nothing particularly exciting - just people who can heal the sick, perform miracles, prophesy, don't sin - that kind of thing. Pretty mundane really.

whag
07-02-2014, 11:31 AM
Nothing particularly exciting - just people who can heal the sick, perform miracles, prophesy, don't sin - that kind of thing. Pretty mundane really.

Absent two independent authors like that, we can discount the deluge story? I'm still not sure what you're saying regarding the flood.

Doug Shaver
07-02-2014, 12:19 PM
Nothing particularly exciting - just people who can heal the sick, perform miracles, prophesy, don't sin - that kind of thing. Pretty mundane really.
Would they have to have actually done those things? Or is it enough that some people claim that they did them?

Truthseeker
07-02-2014, 03:44 PM
Nothing particularly exciting - just people who can heal the sick, perform miracles, prophesy, don't sin - that kind of thing. Pretty mundane really.I am puzzled by your last comment ("pretty mundane really"). A jest, I guess. Anyway, I am reminded of Matthew 12:38-42. No sign will be given you except that of Jonah, I think. If the news of the Resurrection isn't enough evidence for you, nothing will be.

I wonder why you are posting here, perhaps to obstruct the purpose stated in the opening post?

whag
07-02-2014, 05:28 PM
No sign will be given you except that of Jonah, I think. If the news of the Resurrection isn't enough evidence for you, nothing will be.

Now you're off topic. We're on Genesis 1-6, and you're on Jonah and Jesus.

tabibito
07-02-2014, 06:28 PM
Would they have to have actually done those things? Or is it enough that some people claim that they did them?
There would have to be satisfactory evidence that the claims were true.

Absent two independent authors like that, we can discount the deluge story? It isn't quite so cut and dried - more a matter of not being obliged to regard any claim as fact without corroboration. I can declare that a given statement, made just once in the Bible, is fact. That I declare it as fact (seemingly there are two witnesses, the author and myself) is meaningless if there is no evidence to suggest that I am authorised to speak for God. That holds true even if there are multitudes of unattested witnesses declaring as fact a single author's reiterated claims.

The existence a Noah and an Adam are attested well enough, but the details of their stories aren't. The existence of a preacher who warned of a coming flood and saved his family is more or less attested by Biblical corroboration. Details beyond that aren't: and the corroborated elements of the story (beyond actually prophesying the flood) are by no means particularly unlikely in any given era.


I am reminded of Matthew 12:38-42. No sign will be given you except that of Jonah

But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. Meanwhile Jesus is trotting around the countryside performing signs and miracles for the people who aren't members of the criticised generation.

shunyadragon
07-02-2014, 06:47 PM
The existence a Noah and an Adam are attested well enough, but the details of their stories aren't. The existence of a preacher who warned of a coming flood and saved his family is more or less attested by Biblical corroboration. Details beyond that aren't: and the corroborated elements of the story (beyond actually prophesying the flood) are by no means particularly unlikely in any given era.

I do not consider the existence of a Noah, nor an Adam as well attested by Biblical corroboration or other sources.

Doug Shaver
07-02-2014, 07:40 PM
Would they have to have actually done those things? Or is it enough that some people claim that they did them?


There would have to be satisfactory evidence that the claims were true.
I can't quarrel with that, so stated. I suspect, though, that you and I may differ as to what constitutes satisfactory evidence.

whag
07-02-2014, 07:45 PM
The existence a Noah and an Adam are attested well enough, but the details of their stories aren't. The existence of a preacher who warned of a coming flood and saved his family is more or less attested by Biblical corroboration. Details beyond that aren't: and the corroborated elements of the story (beyond actually prophesying the flood) are by no means particularly unlikely in any given era.

To be clear, the existence of Noah and Adam is well attested and corroborated by the bible. Or do you mean corroborated extrabiblically, too? Every biblical character and event is corroborated by the bible.

tabibito
07-02-2014, 07:54 PM
1 Peter 2:20 is an an attested author's record of the basics with regard to the existence of a Noah.

when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. Record of 8 persons being saved through the water by an ark (vessel.) The author affirms this section of the Old Testament record.

2 Peter 2:5 (same author) reaffirms the basics, and expands, but whether it indicates a global flood is a matter of interpolation. Based strictly on what is written in this passage: a rather nasty tsunami, something on the scale of what hit Fukushima, would just barely fit within this description.

and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; So far, 1 corroborating witness, Peter, for just some of the detail recorded in Genesis.

Hebrews 11:7 is corroboration by an independent author of Peter's assertions - but provides no more detail than does Peter, except for the explicit declaration of prophecy.

By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

To my satisfaction, the basics are corroborated by attested witnesses, but the detail isn't. Others, of course, may take either a broader or narrower view.

tabibito
07-02-2014, 08:26 PM
I can't quarrel with that, so stated. I suspect, though, that you and I may differ as to what constitutes satisfactory evidence.
Sadly, that is so. Even in the scientific community, one person's empirical data is another's anecdotal evidence.

tabibito
07-02-2014, 08:51 PM
To be clear, the existence of Noah and Adam is well attested and corroborated by the bible. Or do you mean corroborated extrabiblically, too? Every biblical character and event is corroborated by the bible.

For the most part, the records of more than one Biblical author do attest the existence of key persons. However, there are some whose existence is attested by only one. Only one author mentions Deborah, prophet and judge, for example. Extra Biblical authors do attest her existence, and her role - thus the Biblical record of her existence can be accepted. But establishing the past existence of physical entities and events is one thing, other matters are different entirely.
Paul's edicts regarding the role of women are Paul's alone. Some will attempt to show that Peter supports them, but Peter goes no further than to admonish women to subject themselves to their husbands, and that for a given purpose. Paul's edicts are contrary to the evidence provided by a number of authors - including the record of Deborah itself, the existence of prophetesses, a woman directly involved in teaching a man who was already well versed (though with some points lacking) in Christian doctrine, Old Testament prophecy regarding the "Christian Covenant" and even his own statement attesting a named woman as an apostle.

whag
07-02-2014, 09:13 PM
1 Peter 2:20 is an an attested author's record of the basics with regard to the existence of a Noah.
Record of 8 persons being saved through the water by an ark (vessel.) The author affirms this section of the Old Testament record.

2 Peter 2:5 (same author) reaffirms the basics, and expands, but whether it indicates a global flood is a matter of interpolation. Based strictly on what is written in this passage: a rather nasty tsunami, something on the scale of what hit Fukushima, would just barely fit within this description.
So far, 1 corroborating witness, Peter, for just some of the detail recorded in Genesis.

Hebrews 11:7 is corroboration by an independent author of Peter's assertions - but provides no more detail than does Peter, except for the explicit declaration of prophecy.


To my satisfaction, the basics are corroborated by attested witnesses, but the detail isn't. Others, of course, may take either a broader or narrower view.

It seems to me an unnecessary belief burden. Why is the belief that God killed a large population (to start over) important?

tabibito
07-02-2014, 09:20 PM
?

It is simply a matter of sifting through information to see whether given claims can be considered accurate. If parts of the Bible are demonstrably inaccurate, I wouldn't want to be promoting the idea that they are true. If they are demonstrably accurate, according to the Bible's own rules of establishing accuracy, I wouldn't want to be saying they are false. And of course - if the Bible's own rules for establishing accuracy are proven wrong, there is a thorough-going mess.

whag
07-03-2014, 05:45 AM
?

It is simply a matter of sifting through information to see whether given claims can be considered accurate. If parts of the Bible are demonstrably inaccurate, I wouldn't want to be promoting the idea that they are true. If they are demonstrably accurate, according to the Bible's own rules of establishing accuracy, I wouldn't want to be saying they are false. And of course - if the Bible's own rules for establishing accuracy are proven wrong, there is a thorough-going mess.

You didn't answer my question, but maybe because I didn't phrase it right. Why is the belief in Noah important to your life and your relationship to God? If I was a Christian, I wouldn't feel obligated to rationalize the historicity of the flood. I don't see why it's ultimately important.

tabibito
07-03-2014, 05:59 AM
You didn't answer my question, but maybe because I didn't phrase it right. Why is the belief in Noah important to your life and your relationship to God? If I was a Christian, I wouldn't feel obligated to rationalize the historicity of the flood. I don't see why it's ultimately important.

My answer seems to have been unclear: No importance whatever. No record in the Bible has any impact on the existence of God, which ultimately is where faith needs to be vested. The written record could be (theoretically) inaccurate in every point - it wouldn't affect faith or the existence of God in the least. Though it would make navigation (so to speak) a little tricky.

robrecht
07-03-2014, 06:17 AM
My answer seems to have been unclear: No importance whatever. No record in the Bible has any impact on the existence of God, which ultimately is where faith needs to be vested. The written record could be (theoretically) inaccurate in every point - it wouldn't affect faith or the existence of God in the least. Though it would make navigation (so to speak) a little tricky.I like this answer.

whag
07-03-2014, 06:27 AM
I like this answer.

I do, too.

whag
07-03-2014, 06:33 AM
My answer seems to have been unclear: No importance whatever. No record in the Bible has any impact on the existence of God, which ultimately is where faith needs to be vested. The written record could be (theoretically) inaccurate in every point - it wouldn't affect faith or the existence of God in the least. Though it would make navigation (so to speak) a little tricky.

It's an inverse trickiness to the inerrant/quasi-inerrant view. I'd be very attracted to a streamlined view void of dogma that only required basic belief, eschewing the wasted mental effort that goes into interdenominational squabbling.

robrecht
07-03-2014, 07:03 AM
It's an inverse trickiness to the inerrant/quasi-inerrant view. I'd be very attracted to a streamlined view void of dogma that only required basic belief, eschewing the wasted mental effort that goes into interdenominational squabbling.What is your your streamlined view only requiring basic belief? (Sorry, if you've given it before.)

tabibito
07-03-2014, 07:19 AM
Unfortunately, faith and dogma are inextricably interwoven, and streamlined is very difficult to achieve. Churches have all sorts of rules and precepts because of all the trouble that getting there involves, and I've been trying for (counting on fingers) thirty .... six years now.
However, the essentials are outlined by bushidou - with just a couple of points added. The main difference is in the identity of the liege-lord.
993

whag
07-03-2014, 07:39 AM
Unfortunately, faith and dogma are inextricably interwoven, and streamlined is very difficult to achieve. Churches have all sorts of rules and precepts because of all the trouble that getting there involves, and I've been trying for (counting on fingers) thirty .... six years now.
However, the essentials are outlined by bushidou - with just a couple of points added. The main difference is in the identity of the liege-lord.
993

This would seem to contradict 106, where you implied basic belief is of primary importance. There's nothing in basic belief that would impede those virtues being enacted.

tabibito
07-03-2014, 07:58 AM
Faith is of course the starting point and primary focus, but then the question arises: "Faith in what?" - and the moment the question is answered, you have dogma.
Following that, basic belief won't prevent those elements being enacted, but they can't be actualised without acting on that belief, nor is it possible to achieve them without thoroughgoing repentance - which is in essence a denial of self. That too is acknowledged by bushidou.

whag
07-03-2014, 08:13 AM
Faith is of course the starting point and primary focus, but then the question arises: "Faith in what?" - and the moment the question is answered, you have dogma.

Faith in who, you mean. That's relatively easy to comprehend. Faith in "whats" complicates and hobbles belief. You see the result of that in the recent spate of Christians here confessing that PoE gnaws on their faith. It's a problem started by a dogma that doesn't square with reality.

robrecht
07-03-2014, 08:25 AM
Faith in who, you mean. That's relatively easy to comprehend. Faith in "whats" complicates and hobbles belief. You see the result of that in the recent spate of Christians here confessing that PoE gnaws on their faith. It's a problem started by a dogma that doesn't square with reality. I think 'faith in what?' is a great question, provided we do not think we are able to answer it, which I think might be in agreement with what you are saying. There's an apocryphal story about St Thomas Aquinas as a child asking, not 'who is God', but, "What is God?" A question he spent the rest of his life trying to answer but failing, even documenting why it is a question that cannot be answered, and at the end of his life trying to burn all his writings as still not even coming close to the reality.

tabibito
07-03-2014, 08:37 AM
What God is, I would not attempt to answer. Faith in whom doesn't develop until we have developed some faith in a couple of whats.
First - faith in what is said about him. Then faith in his love and righteousness. We don't develop faith in a person until we have evidence of that person's attributes, nor do we develop faith in God until we have observed something of his attributes. All too often, people will fail to develop a faith in whom because he doesn't conform to the perceptions of what he should be.

robrecht
07-03-2014, 08:40 AM
What is one of the most basic things you can know about someone? How about their name? That's pretty basic. What does God say when people ask him his name?

tabibito
07-03-2014, 08:58 AM
Do you have faith in a person just because you know the name?

whag
07-03-2014, 09:11 AM
What God is, I would not attempt to answer. Faith in whom doesn't develop until we have developed some faith in a couple of whats.
First - faith in what is said about him. Then faith in his love and righteousness. We don't develop faith in a person until we have evidence of that person's attributes, nor do we develop faith in God until we have observed something of his attributes. All too often, people will fail to develop a faith in whom because he doesn't conform to the perceptions of what he should be.

Faith is evidence of things not seen, according to the bible. I believe you're confusing empirical observation and experience with faith.

So my question still stands: how does dogma facilitate those virtues over a basic belief in God? You haven't given examples of the causality.

robrecht
07-03-2014, 09:15 AM
Do you have faith in a person just because you know the name?No, of course not! But that is not what God says when people ask his name, although it's an interesting variation.

whag
07-03-2014, 09:19 AM
What is your your streamlined view only requiring basic belief? (Sorry, if you've given it before.)

I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase?

tabibito
07-03-2014, 09:30 AM
Faith is evidence of things not seen, according to the bible. I believe you're confusing empirical observation and experience with faith.
Faith is the substance (sub-structure (underpinning even)/foundation) of things hoped for, the evidence (either proof arising from putting things to the test or conviction) of things not seen. Among the top 10 misapplied quotes from the Bible.
Try also Romans 15:19, 1 Corinthians 2:4-5. ... They provide the first clues that something is wrong with the usual interpretation.

robrecht
07-03-2014, 09:30 AM
I don't understand your question. Can you rephrase?You said you would "be very attracted to a streamlined view void of dogma that only required basic belief, eschewing the wasted mental effort that goes into interdenominational squabbling." I am just wondering if you have a sense of what this streamlined view would look like, that which attracts you?"

tabibito
07-03-2014, 09:32 AM
No, of course not! But that is not what God says when people ask his name, although it's an interesting variation.
The usual answer amounts to "mind your own business" ... "I am who I am" or "Why do you ask, given that it is wonderful (which if I remember rightly, could also mean "secret". Can't swear to it though.)

robrecht
07-03-2014, 09:44 AM
The usual answer amounts to "mind your own business" ... "I am who I am" or "Why do you ask, given that it is wonderful (which if I remember rightly, could also mean "secret". Can't swear to it though.) Close enough. So, if we do not even know God's name, how much do we know about him? Considering everything we know of Jesus' life and teachings, and those of his early followers, eg, Saul of Tarsus, since that time, has anyone told us God's name?

tabibito
07-03-2014, 09:49 AM
Close enough. So, if we do not even know God's name, how much do we know about him? Considering everything we know of Jesus' life and teachings, and those of his early followers, eg, Saul of Tarsus, since that time, has anyone told us God's name?
Err ... which of the many names or titles are you referring to? Father, Prince of Peace, Jesus, YHVH, Lamb of God. The actual name isn't particularly significant provided you have a suitable label, which is pretty much what a name is anyway.

robrecht
07-03-2014, 10:02 AM
Err ... which of the many names or titles are you referring to? Father, Prince of Peace, Jesus, YHVH, Lamb of God. The actual name isn't particularly significant provided you have a suitable label, which is pretty much what a name is anyway.We have lots of great verbal images and exalted titles, and parables, but I don't think we actually have a name. YHVH is something like a third person reference to God's refusal to give a name to Moses, ie, 'He is', or 'He will be', derived from the first person, 'I will be who I will be.' I don't think God wants us to think that we know his name, that we are able to know who he is in his very being or essence. His name is not to be pronounced, just as we are not to make images of him, which would be idolatrous. In the ancient world, knowing someone's name had implied a certain power over the other person. Actually, it still has a certain effect today, which is why sales people work so hard to learn their customers' names and those of their wives and kids. All of this is merely to say, in agreement with Thomas Aquinas and other great theologians, that we do not really know what God is, that we cannot know or define God, that he is not a species in a genus. I suspect you may already agree with some, much, or perhaps even all of this; I'm just sharing my perspective on some of these questions.

whag
07-03-2014, 10:24 AM
You said you would "be very attracted to a streamlined view void of dogma that only required basic belief, eschewing the wasted mental effort that goes into interdenominational squabbling." I am just wondering if you have a sense of what this streamlined view would look like, that which attracts you?"

I can see how a simple belief in god minus distracting dogmas could produce genuine good works. Adding the dogma of heaven and hell nullifies works, in a sense, tying them to reward, fear, and obligation. Note how Jesus synthesizes a complicated list of commands into one command. The command to love one's neighbor is itself complicated enough.

tabibito
07-03-2014, 10:27 AM
I can see how a simple belief in god minus distracting dogmas could produce genuine good works. Adding the dogma of heaven and hell nullifies works, in a sense, tying them to reward, fear, and obligation. Note how Jesus synthesizes a complicated list of commands into one command. The command to love one's neighbor is itself complicated enough.
Yup. Neither hope for the rewards of heaven nor fear of the pangs of hell will in any way result in salvation.

robrecht
07-03-2014, 10:40 AM
I can see how a simple belief in god minus distracting dogmas could produce genuine good works. Adding the dogma of heaven and hell nullifies works, in a sense, tying them to reward, fear, and obligation. Note how Jesus synthesizes a complicated list of commands into one command. The command to love one's neighbor is itself complicated enough.Yes, indeed, and on this point Jesus was following in the tradition of Hillel, but on other important issues (eg, divorce) he sided with Shammai, which I suspect may be part of the reason why he angered so many people. His teachings seemed to challenge both competing orthodoxies.

Doug Shaver
07-03-2014, 06:20 PM
Even in the scientific community, one person's empirical data is another's anecdotal evidence.
Do you think that is always the case, or does it happen just in certain particular circumstances?

tabibito
07-03-2014, 08:19 PM
Do you think that is always the case, or does it happen just in certain particular circumstances?
In science, often. In philosophical and metaphysical matters - maybe not in all cases, but often enough for a Koine speaker to say παν-all (with scant few exceptions) cases.

Doug Shaver
07-04-2014, 11:43 AM
Even in the scientific community, one person's empirical data is another's anecdotal evidence.


Do you think that is always the case, or does it happen just in certain particular circumstances?

In science, often.
What do you think is the difference between the cases where it happens and the cases where it doesn't?

themuzicman
08-22-2014, 10:31 AM
I do not consider the existence of a Noah, nor an Adam as well attested by Biblical corroboration or other sources.

Not even a Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

themuzicman
08-22-2014, 10:43 AM
It seems to me Christians need an interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to make sense. It doesn't have to be the RIGHT one, just seems to make sense.

People who have tried to make sense out of Genesis 1 are Oxymixmudd and GRMorton. They had a debate recently, but unfortunately it seems GRMorton is too busy.

A point to keep in mind is that the Lord God is timeless (out of time, if you prefer). Something that from our human perspective occurred in the past and another thing that will soon occur in the future are things that occur all at once from God's perspective. Not a good way to put it, perhaps, but about the best I can explain.

Another point is that God may be frequently anthropomorphized in the Bible, even though that may distort the truth. We humans are simply not able to understand God's nature in human terms.

If you have a favorite interpretation, go ahead, present it here!

Dr. John Walton presents an interesting perspective on Genesis 1. You can find his book "The Lost World of Genesis 1" on Amazon (using the link at the top of the page.)

Basically, he says that the cosmology of the ancient near east was more interested in things being put in functional order than in temporal order.

So, on the first day, "Let there be light", the idea of light to the ANE was that which governs time.


3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

On the second day, the organization of water and land (water above refers to the blue in the sky, and the fact that water comes from the sky. Also, the ANE view of the universe is basically a cylinder shaped land suspended in water, with water in the "heavens" (sky).


6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse[a] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made[b] the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven.[c] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,[d] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

On the third day, there is vegetation, which is the order necessary for eating.


11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

So, we have time, water and food in the first three days.

Now, the next three days are the "functionaries" of the first three days.

So, day 4 is the sun, moon and stars to govern light, day and night.


14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,[f] and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

On the fifth day, we have those that function in the waters, birds (sky) and fish (sea)

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And finally on the 6th day, we have animals who consume and regulate the vegetation that grows on land:


24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

And the order of creation is complete. Now God needs a caretaker to subdue and have dominion over the earth, for which He creates man:


26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

If you take the time to understand the cosmology of other cultures in the ANE, you find a very similar pattern to this account. Again, read Dr. Walton's books on this, they go into more detail.

tabibito
08-22-2014, 11:13 AM
Not even a Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

You would have a Noah during the Eemian or earlier (maybe much earlier) it seems. But there is nothing like enough to make it more than reasonable speculation ... except that a Noah certainly cannot have lived closer to our own time.

rogue06
08-22-2014, 11:16 AM
Dr. John Walton presents an interesting perspective on Genesis 1. You can find his book "The Lost World of Genesis 1" on Amazon (using the link at the top of the page.)

Basically, he says that the cosmology of the ancient near east was more interested in things being put in functional order than in temporal order.

So, on the first day, "Let there be light", the idea of light to the ANE was that which governs time.



On the second day, the organization of water and land (water above refers to the blue in the sky, and the fact that water comes from the sky. Also, the ANE view of the universe is basically a cylinder shaped land suspended in water, with water in the "heavens" (sky).



On the third day, there is vegetation, which is the order necessary for eating.



So, we have time, water and food in the first three days.

Now, the next three days are the "functionaries" of the first three days.

So, day 4 is the sun, moon and stars to govern light, day and night.



On the fifth day, we have those that function in the waters, birds (sky) and fish (sea)

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And finally on the 6th day, we have animals who consume and regulate the vegetation that grows on land:



And the order of creation is complete. Now God needs a caretaker to subdue and have dominion over the earth, for which He creates man:



If you take the time to understand the cosmology of other cultures in the ANE, you find a very similar pattern to this account. Again, read Dr. Walton's books on this, they go into more detail.
See Walton's "Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and the Ancient Near East: Order out of Disorder after Chaoskampf" for a discussion of creation from functional rather than material ontological perspective (p.56 on).

According to Walton, functional ontology is interested in somethings role and purpose and not interested in its material status.


"In such an ontology, to bring something into existence (i.e., to create something) means to give it a function and a role, not to give it physical properties ... They contain little information concerning material origins. The precreation state is not absent of matter but absent of function. Creation involves the giving of functions often in terms of separating, naming, and assigning roles ... If Genesis 1 were an account of material origins, we would logically expect it to start when no material existed. Yet, in Genesis 1:2, the situation described is not absent of matter ["darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters" Gen 1:2] but absent of function ... The biblical text reports that in six days God made heaven and earth. If this is an account of functional origins, these six days do not mark the material beginning of the cosmos but the functional beginning. Consequently, the age of the material earth would have no relationship to these six days, for the material cosmos could have been in existence for endless ages before this creation of functions. It should be noted that the ancient idea of functions was not the same as our scientific descriptions of functions (e.g., the sun as a burning ball of gas that holds planets in orbit by its gravitational pull). Rather their understanding of function centered entirely on the role played in human existence: a utilitarian perspective that coincides more closely with what we sometimes call the anthropic principle. The text itself indicates this interest in functions explicitly in day four where the celestial bodies are clearly described in functional terms [That is the text is not interested in whether something functions in nature or in scientific ways (sun as a star in a galaxy providing a center of gravity and producing light as a ball of burning gas) but in providing functions for human life and existence (notice in day : signs, seasons, days and years)]."

After this Walton shows how the six days "God set up a cosmos to function for human beings, with the function described in ways that were pertinent to them. Thus ... cosmogony is understood as an account of functional origins - creation as they perceive it is not a material process ... In this way, Genesis is an ancient account dealing with ancient issues in ancient ways with an ancient perspective on ontology. As such, it does not have anything to offer to the modern scientific discussion of material origins."

So Walton is essentially arguing that the preoccupation with concern about material origins of the world is actually a modern phenomena that really took off during the last 200 years or so, with Genesis 1 incorrectly being brought into judgment for something it was never written or designed to do. I happen to agree with this sentiment since the entire concept of reconstructing and recounting events in exact statistical detail (as it actually happened) is a relatively modern development with its roots deeply entrenched in the ideals of the positivists who arose in the early 19th century.

Returning to Walton, as seen above he maintains that God was utilizing the cosmological understanding of the ancient world to describe how the functions of that world were called into being and operated and left open the actual details (the scientific explanation) for how the material nature of the world originated.

The Genesis account, argues Walton, is not concerned with scientific explanations, and its attention on the investigation of matter, but rather is focused on metaphysical questions of how the universe was ordered by God.

whag
08-22-2014, 11:52 AM
Dr. John Walton presents an interesting perspective on Genesis 1. You can find his book "The Lost World of Genesis 1" on Amazon (using the link at the top of the page.)

Basically, he says that the cosmology of the ancient near east was more interested in things being put in functional order than in temporal order.

So, on the first day, "Let there be light", the idea of light to the ANE was that which governs time.



On the second day, the organization of water and land (water above refers to the blue in the sky, and the fact that water comes from the sky. Also, the ANE view of the universe is basically a cylinder shaped land suspended in water, with water in the "heavens" (sky).



On the third day, there is vegetation, which is the order necessary for eating.



So, we have time, water and food in the first three days.

Now, the next three days are the "functionaries" of the first three days.

So, day 4 is the sun, moon and stars to govern light, day and night.



On the fifth day, we have those that function in the waters, birds (sky) and fish (sea)

20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[g] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.” 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

And finally on the 6th day, we have animals who consume and regulate the vegetation that grows on land:



And the order of creation is complete. Now God needs a caretaker to subdue and have dominion over the earth, for which He creates man:



If you take the time to understand the cosmology of other cultures in the ANE, you find a very similar pattern to this account. Again, read Dr. Walton's books on this, they go into more detail.

Does he say anything about Satan and Eden also being figurative? We have a decent record of the earth, but we have no evidence that any particular region of the earth was protected from the forces of nature. What does he think Eden was if not literal?

tabibito
08-22-2014, 11:59 AM
Eden is not on Earth according to Biblical record. The Koine Greek word for Eden in translation is Paradise.

whag
08-22-2014, 03:10 PM
Eden is not on Earth according to Biblical record. The Koine Greek word for Eden in translation is Paradise.

Adam and Eve were expelled from another planet?

Truthseeker
08-22-2014, 05:40 PM
muzicman and rogue06, thank you! :hi: Based on several posts in this thread and another ("deep time"), it seems clear now that one main problem with YECs is that they misunderstand the Bible, Genesis in particular. Of course another problem is something like the Dunning-Kruger effect plus the arrogance of the YECs.



Eden is not on Earth according to Biblical record. The Koine Greek word for Eden in translation is Paradise. I would like more argument for that assertion (the first sentence).

shunyadragon
08-22-2014, 06:38 PM
Not even a Y-chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

These are considered analogies or symbolic Adam and Eve in terms of the genetic origins of humanity, and no relationship to the Biblical Adam and Eve.

shunyadragon
08-22-2014, 06:41 PM
Eden is not on Earth according to Biblical record. The Koine Greek word for Eden in translation is Paradise.

Yes the Koine Greek would read this way, but Biblically the Garden of Eden has always been considered to be Paradise on earth.

whag
08-22-2014, 09:19 PM
Yes the Koine Greek would read this way, but Biblically the Garden of Eden has always been considered to be Paradise on earth.

There must be huge freedom in Christian belief if a Christian can believe Adam and Eve originated from another planet.

Doug Shaver
08-22-2014, 09:21 PM
The Koine Greek word for Eden in translation is Paradise.
Since Genesis was written in Hebrew, how is that relevant?

tabibito
08-22-2014, 09:30 PM
There must be huge freedom in Christian belief if a Christian can believe Adam and Eve originated from another planet.

Paradise is another planet?


Since Genesis was written in Hebrew, how is that relevant?

The tree of life is in Eden - to this day, according to Revelation. No record that it was transplanted exists. According to Genesis, Adam was created from the dust of the Earth and then moved to Eden.


Yes the Koine Greek would read this way, but Biblically the Garden of Eden has always been considered to be Paradise on earth.

The Eden referred to in Ezekiel is Paradise. The Bible has traditionally been interpreted to say that there are two Edens.

whag
08-23-2014, 01:27 AM
Paradise is another planet?

You said the Paradise Adam and Eve were expelled from isn't on Earth. Am I stupid to assume you meant it's on another planet? Another non-Earth locale could only be a planet. Did you mean Heaven?

tabibito
08-23-2014, 01:36 AM
You said the Paradise Adam and Eve were expelled from isn't on Earth. Am I stupid to assume you meant it's on another planet? Another non-Earth locale could only be a planet. Did you mean Heaven?

It would seem that heaven is at least likely. Another planet wouldn't be an option, given that Eden is directly** accessible from Earth.
(** but maybe a wardrobe would be necessary).

It is always a toss up whether "not on Earth" or "not in the universe" would be a better choice of phrase.

shunyadragon
08-23-2014, 04:03 AM
The Eden referred to in Ezekiel is Paradise. The Bible has traditionally been interpreted to say that there are two Edens.

I do not believe this a traditional interpretation for the Garden of Adam and Eve. It is possible for alternative interpretations, because heaven may be also interpreted as 'paradise,' but I need references to back this up.

tabibito
08-23-2014, 04:15 AM
I do not believe this a traditional interpretation for the Garden of Adam and Eve. It is possible for alternative interpretations, because heaven may be also interpreted as 'paradise,' but I need references to back this up. As I stated, the traditional interpretation is that there are two Edens.

However, with the tree of life being located in Paradise (Revelation 2:7) the traditional view becomes highly doubtful.

whag
08-23-2014, 11:32 AM
It would seem that heaven is at least likely. Another planet wouldn't be an option, given that Eden is directly** accessible from Earth.
(** but maybe a wardrobe would be necessary).

It is always a toss up whether "not on Earth" or "not in the universe" would be a better choice of phrase.

Let me get this straight, because I've never heard it before. According to Christianity, Adam and Eve were created in Heaven, then expelled to earth?

tabibito
08-23-2014, 11:43 AM
Not quite. Adam was created outside of Eden. Then transferred to Eden. (subsequently?) Plants, animals, Eve were created in Eden. That is the Genesis 2 account.

Some pointers are available through rabbinical records and in the non-protestant books of the Bible, but not much. Virtually nothing in the 66 book Protestant Bible.

And no - not according to Christianity - this is self assigned research.

ETA
I have often wondered, since starting this little project, whether C.S.Lewis might have drawn something of the same conclusions.

whag
08-23-2014, 02:23 PM
Not quite. Adam was created outside of Eden. Then transferred to Eden. (subsequently?) Plants, animals, Eve were created in Eden. That is the Genesis 2 account.

You're all over the map here. I can't make sense of what "outside of Eden" means. According to my count, you're talking about three separate places.

Wouldnt it be easier to interpret it as myth? All the evidence points to human beings evolving from lower primates. We didn't come from a "first couple."


no - not according to Christianity - this is self assigned research.


I'm starting to gather that.



I have often wondered, since starting this little project, whether C.S.Lewis might have drawn something of the same conclusions.

This is a project of yours?

shunyadragon
08-23-2014, 05:18 PM
As I stated, the traditional interpretation is that there are two Edens.

However, with the tree of life being located in Paradise (Revelation 2:7) the traditional view becomes highly doubtful.

you are presenting an alternate explanation, ok, as you describe 'self-assigned research. This alternate explanation is not what Christianity has traditionally believed, and today the dominant belief for those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve is that the Garden of Eden was an earthly paradise where the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were located.

Doug Shaver
08-23-2014, 08:25 PM
And no - not according to Christianity - this is self assigned research.
Pretty much by definition, then, it is not traditional.

tabibito
08-23-2014, 11:37 PM
You're all over the map here. I can't make sense of what "outside of Eden" means. According to my count, you're talking about three separate places.

Wouldnt it be easier to interpret it as myth? All the evidence points to human beings evolving from lower primates. We didn't come from a "first couple."




I'm starting to gather that.




This is a project of yours?

Putting it in terms that will be less confusing -

Making sense of Genesis begins with making a determination of what exactly is recorded in the Bible, without reference to extra Biblical information.

I started out looking at how much, if anything, of the Genesis account of creation could be regarded as valid. Doing that involved an examination of what the Bible records with precision - sans all presupposition (including whether or not it might be right).

So - where does the Bible say that the creation of life took place? Eden.
Where is Eden? - Tree of life is located in Eden according to Genesis, Paradise according to Revelation, and the Koine Greek translation of Eden is Paradise.
The indications of the Bible are that Eden and Paradise are one and the same. There is nothing BIBLICAL that shows otherwise. (if someone can point to something in contradiction, feel free to provide it)
Traditions state that the Eden of the creation account was on Earth ... which is a little difficult to accept because it continues to exist.
Traditions also state that there were two Edens, one on Earth and the other in Heaven. No Biblical record makes such a differentiation possible.

Adam was not created in Eden, according to Biblical account, but first on Earth from whence he was transferred to Eden.

The record of the creation of life refers to that creation taking place in Eden. Whether or not Eden was on Earth, the creation account doesn't make any mention of what happened elsewhere.

tabibito
08-23-2014, 11:43 PM
you are presenting an alternate explanation, ok, as you describe 'self-assigned research. This alternate explanation is not what Christianity has traditionally believed, and today the dominant belief for those who believe in a literal Adam and Eve is that the Garden of Eden was an earthly paradise where the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were located.

There are dominant beliefs in Christian teaching that are clearly erroneous, and there have been a few dominant beliefs, historically, that were based on a flawed interpretation of what the Bible says.
Scientific method in part involves forming a hypothesis based on observation and then seeing if it can be broken. So far, all I have is what seems to be a reasonably solid hypothesis.

Further, the traditional beliefs are speculations based almost entirely on what the Bible doesn't say. It says very little about the matter of creation.
Some claim that it says Heaven and Earth were created in a span of 6 solar days - based on a stated span of evening to morning (which would be a night: neither solar day nor daylight day) - ignoring the record of Genesis 2 which says all life was created in a day. And ignoring the fact that the word translated as "day" has a range of meaning that includes "era".

Cerebrum123
08-24-2014, 02:46 AM
Putting it in terms that will be less confusing -

Making sense of Genesis begins with making a determination of what exactly is recorded in the Bible, without reference to extra Biblical information.

I started out looking at how much, if anything, of the Genesis account of creation could be regarded as valid. Doing that involved an examination of what the Bible records with precision - sans all presupposition (including whether or not it might be right).

So - where does the Bible say that the creation of life took place? Eden.
Where is Eden? - Tree of life is located in Eden according to Genesis, Paradise according to Revelation, and the Koine Greek translation of Eden is Paradise.
The indications of the Bible are that Eden and Paradise are one and the same. There is nothing BIBLICAL that shows otherwise. (if someone can point to something in contradiction, feel free to provide it)
Traditions state that the Eden of the creation account was on Earth ... which is a little difficult to accept because it continues to exist.
Traditions also state that there were two Edens, one on Earth and the other in Heaven. No Biblical record makes such a differentiation possible.

Adam was not created in Eden, according to Biblical account, but first on Earth from whence he was transferred to Eden.

The record of the creation of life refers to that creation taking place in Eden. Whether or not Eden was on Earth, the creation account doesn't make any mention of what happened elsewhere.

Here you go.

So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

tabibito
08-24-2014, 02:53 AM
?

Here you go.

So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.


It would seem that heaven is at least likely. Another planet wouldn't be an option, given that Eden is directly** accessible from Earth.
(** but maybe a wardrobe would be necessary).

It is always a toss up whether "not on Earth" or "not in the universe" would be a better choice of phrase.

whag
08-24-2014, 07:31 AM
?

Cain stepped through a wardrobe/portal to get to earth?

tabibito
08-24-2014, 08:20 AM
Access was open according to the Biblical record, but is not now available. So - in the time since Cain's offence, it would be reasonable that access was closed.

Also noting that a guard placed on the eastern side was sufficient to prevent access. No area in the Tigris Euphrates region can only be approached from the west. It's a fair bet that the chroniclers of the Bible would have been aware of the fact. If they weren't, there would a problem of why they would assume approach was possible from only one direction - it certainly isn't a common place circumstance, particularly given the assumed size of Eden.

Rabbinical literature

places Cush (Ethiopia) as 60x the size of Egypt and 1/60 the size of the (then known) world, the (then known) world 1/60 the size of Gan, which was in turn 1/60 the size of Eden. With Eden being 3600x the size of the then known world it is quite a tough job to slot it into the Tigris Euphrates area. (not sure what is meant by Gan, so I won't say it is the globe: nor can I think of anything else it might be.)
With all that, there is another body of Rabbinical literature declaring that Eden still exists, though no-one can find it.

ETA
Just discovered that Islam teaching is that Eden is in Heaven. Not sure if that is a plus or a minus for my argument.

Cerebrum123
08-24-2014, 09:19 AM
?

The verse I gave directly contradicts your nonsense. Your later post is also nonsense, as there are many places that can only be entered from one area by way of land. At the time of Adam there would be no need for a guard from any other direction, and after Noah Eden would be destroyed(as would everything else "under heaven"). Then there's the fact that Eden is given a specific location here.



8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

This is obviously describing an earthly location, although a flood large enough to destroy all things "under the whole heaven" would massively alter the topography.

You asked for something that contradicts you that is Biblical, I have done that.

tabibito
08-24-2014, 09:37 AM
The verse I gave directly contradicts your nonsense. The verse you cited shows that access to Eden was unrestricted at the time spoken of: a point I had already noted in an earlier post. What did your post contradict, rather than support what I had already said?

Your later post is also nonsense, as there are many places that can only be entered from one area by way of land. You seem to have missed part of my post, which stipulated the Tigris/Euphrates region, and stipulated that Eden is rather too large (to fit into a box canyon for example).

At the time of Adam there would be no need for a guard from any other direction, and after Noah Eden would be destroyed(as would everything else "under heaven"). Then there's the fact that Eden is given a specific location here. I had neglected the flood's effect on anything that might have been on Earth. Perhaps you can explain how it continued in existence at least until the time of Ezekiel?





8 Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[d] and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.[e] 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

This is obviously describing an earthly location, although a flood large enough to destroy all things "under the whole heaven" would massively alter the topography. And again - how do you explain Eden's continuing existence after the flood.


You asked for something that contradicts you that is Biblical, I have done that. If you say so.

Cerebrum123
08-24-2014, 11:38 AM
The verse you cited shows that access to Eden was unrestricted at the time spoken of: a point I had already noted in an earlier post. What did your post contradict, rather than support what I had already said?

It shows that Eden was on earth, and not in some other dimension, or Heaven.


You seem to have missed part of my post, which stipulated the Tigris/Euphrates region, and stipulated that Eden is rather too large (to fit into a box canyon for example).

You neglected the part that those rivers flowed out of Eden, and were not necessarily part of Eden.




Um, Ezekiel is not speaking literally for one, and secondly, just as other places that were destroyed were renamed after previous location(Euphrates and Tigris being examples), so too could a place later be named Eden. Heck, a search of the word Eden even shows that someone named their son that in the Bible.

[QUOTE] And again - how do you explain Eden's continuing existence after the flood.

I don't see that happening. Ezekiel certainly doesn't seem to be saying that at all. In fact, the wording in Ezekiel 36 seems to be rather different than the Eden in Genesis 1-3.

35 They will say, “This land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden; the cities that were lying in ruins, desolate and destroyed, are now fortified and inhabited.” 36 Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the Lord have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the Lord have spoken, and I will do it.’

37 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to Israel’s plea and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, 38 as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

Doesn't sound much like the Eden in Genesis 1-3. Ezekiel is speaking of more than one Eden, because he speaks of one trading with others. When has the Eden of Genesis 1 had a trade relationship with other areas?

Some of Ezekiel's words fit the Genesis Eden, other don't.


If you say so.

At this point there has been more than a little given to show that an otherworldly Eden isn't in view.

tabibito
08-24-2014, 11:59 AM
At this point there has been more than a little given to show that an otherworldly Eden isn't in view.
More than a little has been given to show that an alternative interpretation is possible - which I don't deny is possible, but I don't find it believable.

What does the Biblical record explicitly state?


That the creation was brought to fruition through a span of six days? No - if day is interpreted to mean a span of 24 hours Genesis 1 is pitted in contradiction of Genesis 2. The definitions appropriate for day do include "era" (or similar), which can be confirmed by a simple check of a dictionary. No conflict exists if "day" is interpreted to mean era.

Was Adam created in Eden? No - He was moved to Eden after he was given life.

Does the Bible declare the location of Eden? No.

Does the tree of life still exist? Yes

Is the tree of life in the midst of Eden? Only if Eden is Paradise.


Now - which of the details explicitly stated in the Bible declare Eden to have been on Earth?


Ezekiel is speaking of more than one Eden, because he speaks of one trading with others. When has the Eden of Genesis 1 had a trade relationship with other areas?

Eze 27:23 “Haran, Canneh, Eden, the merchants of Sheba, Assyria, and Chilmad were your merchants.
You are quite correct - this Eden has nothing to do with the Garden of Eden. The relevant passages of Ezekiel no more include trade cities than they do Eden Valley in Australia.

Truthseeker
08-24-2014, 12:52 PM
Two points: The word in Hebrew translated "day" has two principal senses, dependent on context: 1) a moment or period of time when the sun is up between dawn and dusk; 2) an indefinite period of time probably greater than 12 hours (e.g., 300 hours or one gigayear).

The other point: "Like Eden" does not mean there are two Edens. "That is like Eden" does not mean the subject is Eden. A drawing of supposed similarity is merely being made.

tabibito
08-24-2014, 01:10 PM
The word in Hebrew translated "day" has two principal senses
2) an indefinite period of time probably greater than 12 hours (e.g., 300 hours or one gigayear).Yes: and using any other sense of day in Genesis 1 and 2 would create a wholly unwarranted contradiction.


The other point: "Like Eden" does not mean there are two Edens. "That is like Eden" does not mean the subject is Eden. A drawing of supposed similarity is merely being made. Yes: and "Place X" is Eden is metaphorical, not saying that "Place X" is in reality Eden.

shunyadragon
08-24-2014, 02:51 PM
Yes: and using any other sense of day in Genesis 1 and 2 would create a wholly unwarranted contradiction.

Yes: and "Place X" is Eden is metaphorical, not saying that "Place X" is in reality Eden.

The description in Ezekiel is apparently a place compared to, like,' the Garden of Eden and not the Garden of Eden of Adam and Eve. Read carefully the text.



Source: Ezekiel 36
35 They will say, “This land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden; the cities that were lying in ruins, desolate and destroyed, are now fortified and inhabited.” 36 Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the Lord have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the Lord have spoken, and I will do it.’

37 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to Israel’s plea and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, 38 as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

© Copyright Original Source

Doug Shaver
08-24-2014, 07:59 PM
using any other sense of day in Genesis 1 and 2 would create a wholly unwarranted contradiction.
That is a problem for inerrantists. It is not a problem for anyone else.

tabibito
08-24-2014, 08:56 PM
The description in Ezekiel is apparently a place compared to, like,' the Garden of Eden and not the Garden of Eden of Adam and Eve. Read carefully the text.



Source: Ezekiel 36
35 They will say, “This land that was laid waste has become like the garden of Eden; the cities that were lying in ruins, desolate and destroyed, are now fortified and inhabited.” 36 Then the nations around you that remain will know that I the Lord have rebuilt what was destroyed and have replanted what was desolate. I the Lord have spoken, and I will do it.’

37 “This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Once again I will yield to Israel’s plea and do this for them: I will make their people as numerous as sheep, 38 as numerous as the flocks for offerings at Jerusalem during her appointed festivals. So will the ruined cities be filled with flocks of people. Then they will know that I am the Lord.”

© Copyright Original Source

Wrong verses. But Ezekiel is the weakest point of the argument anyway: the correct verses might be considered poetical allegory, and using them would create an argument about the correct interpretation of "Sheol". The location of the Tree of Life is more compelling.


That is a problem for inerrantists. It is not a problem for anyone else.

Biblical inerrancy is a myth, and demonstrated to be so without too much difficulty - although trying to get its adherents to admit the fact is like trying to convince a YEC that the Theory of Evolution is valid. However, declaring that something is an error needs to have a bit more support than a simple selection of a meaning - even if it is the primary meaning - of a word when an alternative valid meaning shows no error.
The argument that "Eden was on Earth" is a problem for "Sola Scriptura" - the argument is supported only by tradition. "Eden is Paradise" has scant Biblical support, but there is a little.

shunyadragon
08-25-2014, 04:05 AM
That is a problem for inerrantists. It is not a problem for anyone else.

It is also a problem with many in the Roman Church, Orthodox Churches, and other Churches that consider Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden a real place, without necessarily considering the Pentateuch entirely literal. Many that believe in OEC also believe in a real Adam and Eve and the Garden.

whag
08-25-2014, 06:30 AM
"Eden is Paradise" has scant Biblical support, but there is a little.

There may be a little support for it, but it has too many theological problems to be worth defending.

tabibito
08-25-2014, 06:44 AM
Little support in the text for the one, none for the other: what theological problems can you see?

whag
08-25-2014, 09:03 AM
Little support in the text for the one, none for the other: what theological problems can you see?

Equating material Eden with immaterial Heaven. God declaring Eden merely "very good." Animals in Heaven (animals originated and evolved on earth).

It seems like your view in Eden is to counteract the logical problems in the original genesis text. In so doing, you've only multiplied the questions. The best course of action would be to view it as the obvious myth it is, not create a highly speculative backdrop of events, locations, and characters to support your pet hypothesis.

tabibito
08-25-2014, 09:37 AM
Well yes - I fully expect that the accusation will be made.

But of course, when I expressed the view that the Genesis account doesn't declare that things were actually brought into actual being at the time the commands were given, people made the same allegation. Since then, I have discovered that Augustine did not consider that things were actually brought into actual being at the time the commands were spoken. Despite writing four separate attempts at explaining the concepts, he finished unsatisfied with the result - and all of that was done some 1500 or so years ahead of Darwin's time. Was Augustine making up stories to avoid a conflict with the Theory of Evolution?
While I developed the concept that Eden is Paradise independently, checking back in the time since, I find certain passages of the Apocrypha, and of Rabbinical commentary express or hint at similar opinions, and Islamic literature explicitly states that Paradise is Eden.

Eden is stated in Rabbinical literature to be 3600 times the size of Ethiopia, and Ethiopia to be 60 times the area of Egypt.

So - according to concepts more than a thousand years old - Eden (3600x the area of Ethiopia) managed to be squeezed into a physical area twice the size of Egypt at best.

whag
08-25-2014, 11:25 AM
Well yes - I fully expect that the accusation will be made.

But of course, when I expressed the view that the Genesis account doesn't declare that things were actually brought into actual being at the time the commands were given, people made the same allegation. Since then, I have discovered that Augustine did not consider that things were actually brought into actual being at the time the commands were spoken. Despite writing four separate attempts at explaining the concepts, he finished unsatisfied with the result - and all of that was done some 1500 or so years ahead of Darwin's time. Was Augustine making up stories to avoid a conflict with the Theory of Evolution?
While I developed the concept that Eden is Paradise independently, checking back in the time since, I find certain passages of the Apocrypha, and of Rabbinical commentary express or hint at similar opinions, and Islamic literature explicitly states that Paradise is Eden.

Eden is stated in Rabbinical literature to be 3600 times the size of Ethiopia, and Ethiopia to be 60 times the area of Egypt.

So - according to concepts more than a thousand years old - Eden (3600x the area of Ethiopia) managed to be squeezed into a physical area twice the size of Egypt at best.

The bible itself is difficult enough believe. Why on earth would you add non-inspired rabbinical fantasies to your belief burden? Good grief, man...

Truthseeker
08-25-2014, 04:06 PM
Please, don't forget the purpose of the thread. 1) Offer an interpretation of Genesis 1 that seems to make sense. 2) Critique the interpretation. 3) Defend it. If anyone starts out by saying that Genesis is "chock full of errors," that is dissing the thread. Please assume that Genesis as originally transmitted (likely orally) is inerrant.

Doug Shaver
08-25-2014, 06:13 PM
Please, don't forget the purpose of the thread. . . . Please assume that Genesis as originally transmitted (likely orally) is inerrant.
This thread is in a forum folder called Apologetics 301. How much apologetics can you accomplish if your interlocutors must assume inerrancy?

Truthseeker
08-25-2014, 08:23 PM
This thread is in a forum folder called Apologetics 301. How much apologetics can you accomplish if your interlocutors must assume inerrancy?:huh: You think I should ask my interlocutors to assume the Bible is full of errors? I must admit that I can't prove inerrancy. For one thing the size of the Bible alone coupled with the lack of language skills (reading Hebrew, Aramaic, koine Greek) in most everyone . . . If someone refused to agree to assume inerrancy, perhaps I could then ask, "What is your favorite Bible error?" You could imagine me as presenting an explanation so convincing that he agrees that it is not really an error. But maybe he has an humungous list of "errors."

whag
08-25-2014, 11:27 PM
:huh: You think I should ask my interlocutors to assume the Bible is full of errors? I must admit that I can't prove inerrancy. For one thing the size of the Bible alone coupled with the lack of language skills (reading Hebrew, Aramaic, koine Greek) in most everyone . . . If someone refused to agree to assume inerrancy, perhaps I could then ask, "What is your favorite Bible error?" You could imagine me as presenting an explanation so convincing that he agrees that it is not really an error. But maybe he has an humungous list of "errors."

I don't want you to try to prove inerrancy. That is a mindless exercise.

I don't think the bible is correct concerning the dispersion of people on the planet. Modern human beings scattered early, well before ziggurats were built. That's in Genesis. Convince away.

tabibito
08-26-2014, 01:32 AM
If someone refused to agree to assume inerrancy, perhaps I could then ask, "What is your favorite Bible error?" You could imagine me as presenting an explanation so convincing that he agrees that it is not really an error. But maybe he has an humungous list of "errors."

Try the heights of the capitals (https://www.facebook.com/425007244185532/photos/a.774872002532386.1073741830.425007244185532/775929512426635/?type=3&theater) for the pillars Jachin and Boaz in front of the temple of Solomon - and the heights of the pillars themselves, come to that. The pillars can wait, because the proofs take a little providing - but the explanations proffered for the heights of the capitals don't withstand scrutiny for more than 5 seconds.

n.b. I'm not sure whether the link will work, even for facebook account holders.

tabibito
08-26-2014, 01:54 AM
As to the Genesis accounts of creation - what are the options.
1/ Accept that the account is wholly mythical:

This is a strong possibility - The account predates Abraham, and is substantially in accord with regional accounts that were extant at the time of Abraham. The story doesn't originate with YHVH adherent people, though it does have a few original details.
2/ Accept that the account, as presented traditionally, is wholly accurate:

This would require scrapping every conclusion drawn from geological, paleontological, and astronomical evidence. While argument opposing the traditional viewpoint is, strictly speaking, argument from incredulity, it can't be denied that there are strong grounds for that incredulity.
Traditional accounts leave Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 in conflict. This can of course be resolved by noting that a sub-definition of "day" is "era" - That point is not noted by traditional interpretations.
3/ Accept that the Bible declares the creation of life forms occurred within Eden only, and that the Bible indicates a possibility that Eden and Paradise are the same place.

This is the simplest of the arguments. It doesn't require any rejection of scientific data, nor does it require any rejection of the Biblical account of creation. It is noted that heaven (or part thereof, anyway) is recorded elsewhere in the Bible to have touched down on Earth .

KingsGambit
08-26-2014, 07:14 AM
3/ Accept that the Bible declares the creation of life forms occurred within Eden only, and that the Bible indicates a possibility that Eden and Paradise are the same place.

This is the simplest of the arguments. It doesn't require any rejection of scientific data, nor does it require any rejection of the Biblical account of creation. It is noted that heaven (or part thereof, anyway) is recorded elsewhere in the Bible to have touched down on Earth .

Not to speak for him, but I suspect that some of the "theological problems" that Whag alluded to a few posts ago deal with the possible implication of natural harmony in Eden, or a creation without the groaning of birth pains, to borrow a phrase from Paul. This is just a general impression, but I've noticed that many seem to assume that nature was in a vegetarian state pre-Fall; the scriptural metaphor of the lamb and the lion has been one such passage used to support this. This is obviously impossible to square with scientific findings. The concepts of plate tectonics and earthquakes also come into play.

tabibito
08-26-2014, 07:20 AM
Yup - Reading Genesis to give it the traditional meanings simply results in a mockery.

KingsGambit
08-26-2014, 07:21 AM
Please, don't forget the purpose of the thread. 1) Offer an interpretation of Genesis 1 that seems to make sense. 2) Critique the interpretation. 3) Defend it. If anyone starts out by saying that Genesis is "chock full of errors," that is dissing the thread. Please assume that Genesis as originally transmitted (likely orally) is inerrant.

Other Christian views exist that do not require inerrancy, and if you would like to exclude these a priori, that is your prerogative, but in that case, the thread would probably better be suited for one of the Christian-only subfora.

whag
08-26-2014, 10:57 AM
3/ Accept that the Bible declares the creation of life forms occurred within Eden only, and that the Bible indicates a possibility that Eden and Paradise are the same place.
This is the simplest of the arguments. It doesn't require any rejection of scientific data, nor does it require any rejection of the Biblical account of creation. It is noted that heaven (or part thereof, anyway) is recorded elsewhere in the Bible to have touched down on Earth .

I'm curious to know why you think that the creation of flora and fauna in heaven (not earth) doesn't require rejection of scientific findings.

Are you proposing a sort of crude ID hypothesis wherein God sparks life in a heavenly ocean then transfers that simple life via "wardrobe" to earth?

whag
08-26-2014, 11:07 AM
Not to speak for him, but I suspect that some of the "theological problems" that Whag alluded to a few posts ago deal with the possible implication of natural harmony in Eden, or a creation without the groaning of birth pains, to borrow a phrase from Paul. This is just a general impression, but I've noticed that many seem to assume that nature was in a vegetarian state pre-Fall; the scriptural metaphor of the lamb and the lion has been one such passage used to support this. This is obviously impossible to square with scientific findings. The concepts of plate tectonics and earthquakes also come into play.


Bolides, too. And I wouldn't call them concepts but realities. We know they played a role in biological development.

If you consider the relentless ferocity of the Deccan traps and earth impactors, there's no reason to assume life would have to be kickstarted in a heavenly place. It's fecund enough here on earth.

Truthseeker
08-26-2014, 04:03 PM
I don't want you to try to prove inerrancy. That is a mindless exercise.

I don't think the bible is correct concerning the dispersion of people on the planet. Modern human beings scattered early, well before ziggurats were built. That's in Genesis. Convince away.Do you have a reference that explains why that is a problem for the historicity of Genesis?

Truthseeker
08-26-2014, 04:40 PM
Try the heights of the capitals (https://www.facebook.com/425007244185532/photos/a.774872002532386.1073741830.425007244185532/775929512426635/?type=3&theater) for the pillars Jachin and Boaz in front of the temple of Solomon - and the heights of the pillars themselves, come to that. The pillars can wait, because the proofs take a little providing - but the explanations proffered for the heights of the capitals don't withstand scrutiny for more than 5 seconds.

n.b. I'm not sure whether the link will work, even for facebook account holders.1 Kings 7 was cited as giving 35 cubits as the height of the pillars, but my interlinear Bible does indicate 18 cubits, in line with the other cited verses. I don't know what is going on, but I feel safe saying that I don't want to do any more research. I am somewhat pressed for time.

Truthseeker
08-26-2014, 04:45 PM
Yup - Reading Genesis to give it the traditional meanings simply results in a mockery.Would you please give an example of traditional meanings?

tabibito
08-26-2014, 04:51 PM
1 Kings 7 was cited as giving 35 cubits as the height of the pillars, but my interlinear Bible does indicate 18 cubits, in line with the other cited verses. I don't know what is going on, but I feel safe saying that I don't want to do any more research. I am somewhat pressed for time.

Again - the height of the pillars takes some examination before an error can be proven. For now, the Hebrew shows 35 cubits at 1 Kings 7. Eighteen cubits is transposed from the other verses. Combined height of 35 cubits is an alternative attempt to resolve the error - and does violence to the Hebrew grammar.

Amendment: 2 Chronicles 3:15, not 1 Kings 7.

tabibito
08-26-2014, 05:56 PM
I'm curious to know why you think that the creation of flora and fauna in heaven (not earth) doesn't require rejection of scientific findings.

Are you proposing a sort of crude ID hypothesis wherein God sparks life in a heavenly ocean then transfers that simple life via "wardrobe" to earth?

It is more a matter of Heaven being, among other things, a repository of blue-prints (for want of a better term) for the things that exist in this universe. The creation in Eden may have established the rules for the propagation of life on Earth (etc.), which would result in evolution being "random" within the parameters of a set of "natural laws" broadly governing progression. So - no transfer ... and initially, no need for a "wardrobe". There is no Biblical indication of any kind of portal that needed passing when heaven touched down on Earth in a later record - it was simply a "lifting of the veil".

Truthseeker
08-26-2014, 07:09 PM
Again - the height of the pillars takes some examination before an error can be proven. For now, the Hebrew shows 35 cubits at 1 Kings 7. Eighteen cubits is transposed from the other verses. Combined height of 35 cubits is an alternative attempt to resolve the error - and does violence to the Hebrew grammar.
My interlinear Bible is based on the Masoretic version. Unfortunately I could not find an online Masoretic text, so readers of this thread will just have to take my word for now that the Bible says eighteen. eta to clarify, that is in 1 Kings 7:15. I have not checked the other cited verses.

tabibito
08-26-2014, 07:46 PM
Quite right - thirty-five cubits is recorded in 2 Chronicles 3:15 - apologies for my error.

Writeup for the pillars. (https://www.facebook.com/425007244185532/photos/pb.425007244185532.-2207520000.1409108424./775529039133349/?type=3&theater) (facebook)

Chapter.........Pillars (height in cubits).......Capitals (height)
1 Kings 7:15...............18 .......................5 (verse 16)
2 Kings 25:17..............18 .......................3 (verse 17)
2 Chronicles 3:15.........35 .......................5 (verse 15)
Jeremiah 52:21............18 .......................5 (verse 22)

Doug Shaver
08-26-2014, 09:23 PM
:huh: You think I should ask my interlocutors to assume the Bible is full of errors?
No, that is not what I think.

tabibito
08-26-2014, 10:56 PM
And for the Masoretic Text:


1845

whag
08-27-2014, 08:56 AM
It is more a matter of Heaven being, among other things, a repository of blue-prints (for want of a better term) for the things that exist in this universe. The creation in Eden may have established the rules for the propagation of life on Earth (etc.), which would result in evolution being "random" within the parameters of a set of "natural laws" broadly governing progression. So - no transfer ... and initially, no need for a "wardrobe". There is no Biblical indication of any kind of portal that needed passing when heaven touched down on Earth in a later record - it was simply a "lifting of the veil".

That's a crude version of ID. Contrary to what you said, it's poised to reject scientific findings when natural explanations for life's fecundity arise, as they often do.

tabibito
08-27-2014, 09:08 AM
Well - if it is a crude form of ID, so be it. To me, the idea that evolution follows paths of development that seem to have underlying rules seems reasonably evident.
Science might even in time be able to predict what kinds of mutations will result when certain conditions are met, and even devise conditions that will be able to guide mutations and the development of new and desirable species, or species with reduced harmful effects on humans.
If there are no rules that won't be possible. If there are rules, and they just happened, again, so be it.

whag
08-27-2014, 09:25 AM
Well - if it is a crude form of ID, so be it. To me, the idea that evolution follows paths of development that seem to have underlying rules seems reasonably evident.

You couched the option as being in harmony with the scientific method, which it isn't. Science doesn't view every rule as having inexplicable sorcery behind it.



Science might even in time be able to predict what kinds of mutations will result when certain conditions are met, and even devise conditions that will be able to guide mutations and the development of new and desirable species, or species with reduced harmful effects on humans.
If there are no rules that won't be possible. If there are rules, and they just happened, again, so be it.

I just wanted to clarify that it *is* at odds with scientific epistemology.

tabibito
08-27-2014, 09:35 AM
Science doesn't view every rule as having inexplicable sorcery behind it. Does science view any "law of nature" as having no cause? - that is to say, is there any hard data underlying the view that the laws "just happened", or is it just an ideological presupposition?
I would hesitate to accept the idea that the rules governing the processes of the universe "just happened" rather than having been "devised and laid down", and to date, I haven't seen any scientific evidence to show that they did "just happen". And in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, I don't consider a belief that the rules to have been devised as any more ideological than the idea that they weren't.

shunyadragon
08-27-2014, 09:47 AM
Does science view any "law of nature" as having no cause? - that is to say, is there any hard data underlying the view that the laws "just happened", or is it just an ideological presupposition?

This is not an assumption of Metaphysical Naturalism is not that Natural Law has no cause. The only assumption of Methodological Naturalism is that scientific methods can only investigate natural causes.


I would hesitate to accept the idea that the rules governing the processes of the universe "just happened" rather than having been "devised and laid down", and to date, I haven't seen any scientific evidence to show that they did "just happen". And in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, I don't consider a belief that the rules to have been devised as any more ideological than the idea that they weren't.

Science does not go with any concept of "just happened." Methodological Naturalism simply describes our physical existence as a cause and effect relationship and as observed things happen according to Natural Laws. Any assumption or belief that the 'rules and laws' were devised by a 'Source' other then natural causes would be a theological consideration, and not a question for science.

tabibito
08-27-2014, 09:52 AM
I would have thought a search for underlying causes would be a matter for science, and that science would be making no presuppositions about the nature of those causes until enough data became available to allow for a working hypothesis. Or am I putting too much faith in the reputed impartiality of science?

whag
08-27-2014, 11:03 AM
Does science view any "law of nature" as having no cause? - that is to say, is there any hard data underlying the view that the laws "just happened", or is it just an ideological presupposition?

There's difference between presupposing a self-assembling, self-propagating structure (such as the first cell) and presupposing that structures were made instantly in the ether. There's precedence for the former and no precedence for the latter. The latter is explicitly informed by ideology.



I would hesitate to accept the idea that the rules governing the processes of the universe "just happened" rather than having been "devised and laid down", and to date, I haven't seen any scientific evidence to show that they did "just happen".

I would hesitate to apply those rules to a loving creator and, to date, haven't seen any evidence that show rules had to be concocted in a mythical place.


And in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, I don't consider a belief that the rules to have been devised as any more ideological than the idea that they weren't.

The rule of propagation says that species, including human beings, reproduce in large quantities to counteract high mortality which is woven into teleology from the outset. Christian theology, however, insists mortality was introduced by Satan or man or both somewhere along the timeline. You may have solved your particular conundrum by speculating about creation in heaven, but at the expense of inventing a new protology where predation, disease, and calamity were in the original blueprints.

shunyadragon
08-27-2014, 11:08 AM
I would have thought a search for underlying causes would be a matter for science, and that science would be making no presuppositions about the nature of those causes until enough data became available to allow for a working hypothesis. Or am I putting too much faith in the reputed impartiality of science?

It not the impartiality of science that is at issue. Science is just capable determining the underlying causes beyond the scope of Methodological Naturalism, which is limited to the scientific methods for the investigation and falsification of theories and hypothesis concerning natural physical phenomenon. The impartiality of science would be that of a neutral position between the metaphysical positions of Philosophical Naturalism (atheist position), and theological explanations for the origins and causes of the nature of our physical existence.

Truthseeker
08-27-2014, 04:16 PM
Quite right - thirty-five cubits is recorded in 2 Chronicles 3:15 - apologies for my error.

Writeup for the pillars. (https://www.facebook.com/425007244185532/photos/pb.425007244185532.-2207520000.1409108424./775529039133349/?type=3&theater) (facebook)

Chapter.........Pillars (height in cubits).......Capitals (height)
1 Kings 7:15...............18 .......................5 (verse 16)
2 Kings 25:17..............18 .......................3 (verse 17)
2 Chronicles 3:15.........35 .......................5 (verse 15)
Jeremiah 52:21............18 .......................5 (verse 22)It seems as though the translation ought to be "two pillars whose heights total 35 cubits." Note that the height of either pillar may be, say, 17.7 cubits, rounded to 18 cubits. Multiplying 17.7 by 2 yields 35.4, which is rounded to 35. I am not sure about the translation though, but it's now up to you to totally discredit it. As for the 2 Kings "error" I'll look into that by and by. It may have been a copyist error after all.

tabibito
08-27-2014, 08:15 PM
It seems as though the translation ought to be "two pillars whose heights total 35 cubits." No. The word here is "orek" (singular): for a combined length totalling 35 cubits" "arekam" (plural) would be required. The fact is demonstrated by 2 Chronicles 3:11, where the combination span of the wings of the two cherubim is 20 cubits arekam, not 20 cubits orek.

tabibito
08-28-2014, 05:06 AM
The rule of propagation says that species, including human beings, reproduce in large quantities to counteract high mortality which is woven into teleology from the outset. Christian theology, however, insists mortality was introduced by Satan or man or both somewhere along the timeline. You may have solved your particular conundrum by speculating about creation in heaven, but at the expense of inventing a new protology where predation, disease, and calamity were in the original blueprints.

Ah - that's what you meant by theological conflicts. It could be squared away easily by standard apologetic procedures, but given that I find those abhorrent, I'll wait until I have investigated whether it is a matter of apologetic rationalisation or a real explanation.

Quantum Weirdness
08-28-2014, 08:52 AM
No. The word here is "orek" (singular): for a combined length totalling 35 cubits" "arekam" (plural) would be required. The fact is demonstrated by 2 Chronicles 3:11, where the combination span of the wings of the two cherubim is 20 cubits arekam, not 20 cubits orek.

Sigh, there is a singular orek of plural nouns, you know.

Psalm 21:4 for instance.

tabibito
08-28-2014, 09:44 AM
Sigh, there is a singular orek of plural nouns, you know.

Psalm 21:4 for instance.
Pillars are discrete objects.
Indeed, there is more than one occurrence of a orek associated with a plural form noun. It takes some working out whether a plural form actually refers to a number - 2 or more physical objects, or whether it is an intensive plural; for example, where it refers to an honorific plural, or other forms of intensive plural such as "chambers" for a block of chambers rather than a number of discrete chambers, and of course "length of days" when the term refers to a life span.
Given that pillars are discrete objects, arekam is the correct form if the length is a combined figure.

However, the heights of the capitals can't be wormed around and rationalised to pretend that there is no contradiction. John Wesley did propose the idea that the capitals were 3 cubits high, and added bits padded it out to 5. That would throw another reference (1 Kings 7:16) into error, because that one says they were made 5 cubits high. That is, they were 5 cubits high when they were cast.

Quantum Weirdness
08-28-2014, 01:38 PM
Pillars are discrete objects.
Indeed, there is more than one occurrence of a orek associated with a plural form noun. It takes some working out whether a plural form actually refers to a number - 2 or more physical objects, or whether it is an intensive plural; for example, where it refers to an honorific plural, or other forms of intensive plural such as "chambers" for a block of chambers rather than a number of discrete chambers, and of course "length of days" when the term refers to a life span.
Given that pillars are discrete objects, arekam is the correct form if the length is a combined figure.

Orek references length in a horizontal manner. (the references in exodus merely imply that they were made on a horizontal axis.) So, if anything, the chronicler is simply referencing to their horizontal length side by side.

Btw You can have length of branches (Ezek 31:7) and length of gates (Ezek 40:18). Did these things touch each other?


However, the heights of the capitals can't be wormed around and rationalised to pretend that there is no contradiction. John Wesley did propose the idea that the capitals were 3 cubits high, and added bits padded it out to 5. That would throw another reference (1 Kings 7:16) into error, because that one says they were made 5 cubits high. That is, they were 5 cubits high when they were cast.

3 cubits is said to be in Error by the Pulpit commentary. And it could easily be between 4 and 5 cubits (thus both being used as round numbers). But it could also be a case of ma besay-il (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatinspire.php).

tabibito
09-01-2014, 01:32 AM
Orek references length in a horizontal manner. Probably true. Given that three of the references show "orek" the fact wouldn't change anything.

(the references in exodus merely imply that they were made on a horizontal axis.) So, if anything, the chronicler is simply referencing to their horizontal length side by side.Horizontal length, end to end, is specified. The left wing tip of one angel touching a wall, the right touching the left wing tip of the other angel, its right wing tip touching the opposite wall.


Btw You can have length of branches (Ezek 31:7) and length of gates (Ezek 40:18). Did these things touch each other? Ezekiel 40:18 - The length of the branches - Did the combined measure of the branches amount to a great length, or does orek imply that the length of each (significant) branch was great?
Ezekiel 31:7 The length of the gates is a single span - against which the pavement is being measured: the focus is on the length of the pavement, not on the gates themselves. If the gates themselves were being measured, orek would imply the length of each. If the combined width of the gates were being measured against the pavement, you would have the arekam of the gates being equal to that of the pavement.




3 cubits is said to be in Error by the Pulpit commentary. And it could easily be between 4 and 5 cubits (thus both being used as round numbers). But it could also be a case of ma besay-il (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatinspire.php). Yep - 3 cubits is an error, and 3 cubits is recorded by the Bible. 4 cubits is specified for the capitals of the pillars inside the temple.

tabibito
09-01-2014, 04:07 AM
The measure given, both in 1 Kings 7:16 and Jeremiah 52:22, is "five cubits," which is generally regarded as correct; but the proportion of 3 to 18, or one-sixth, is far more suitable for a capital than that of 5 to 18, or between a third and a fourth.
The Pulpit Commentary notes that the proportions were unexpected. However, three (not two) passages showing 5 cubits.


Ellicott: (17) Three cubits.—An error of transcription for five. Five cubits was the height of the capital according to 1Kings 7:16; Jeremiah 52:22; 2Chronicles 3:15.
What evidence is provided for a transcription error - there is no authenticated manuscript that says other than three.


Barnes: Compare with this description the accounts in marginal references. The height of the capital ("three cubits") must be corrected, in accordance with those passages, to "five cubits."


Gill: there is this difference here in 2 Kings 25:17 the height of the chapiter of a pillar is said to be three cubits, there (Jeremiah 52:22) five cubits
Gill notes that a rabbinical resolution was proposed, the same as Wesley's "reconciliation", - which, given that the capitals were said to have been 5 cubits high when they were made (1 Kings 7:15), would make that record incorrect. The "resolution" simply re-locates the error to another verse.

Quantum Weirdness
09-01-2014, 04:42 AM
Probably true. Given that three of the references show "orek" the fact wouldn't change anything.
Horizontal length, end to end, is specified. The left wing tip of one angel touching a wall, the right touching the left wing tip of the other angel, its right wing tip touching the opposite wall.

Ok?


Ezekiel 31:7 - The length of the branches - Did the combined measure of the branches amount to a great length, or does orek imply that the length of each (significant) branch was great?

The references that we do have (e.g. Length of days) imply that all the branches are being counted.


Ezekiel 40:18- The length of the gates is a single span - against which the pavement is being measured: the focus is on the length of the pavement, not on the gates themselves. If the gates themselves were being measured, orek would imply the length of each. If the combined width of the gates were being measured against the pavement, you would have the arekam of the gates being equal to that of the pavement.

But it says length of gates. Does that mean stuff other than the gates are being measured? Can you find any reference to gates being measured like this?


Yep - 3 cubits is an error, and 3 cubits is recorded by the Bible. 4 cubits is specified for the capitals of the pillars inside the temple.

Sorry I' misquoted the Pulpit there.
In any case, I still go with either a copyist error, or ma besay il.

tabibito
09-01-2014, 05:13 AM
Ok?



[quote]The references that we do have (e.g. Length of days) imply that all the branches are being counted. So you're saying that orek implies that the branches are long when their combined length is measured when they are laid end to end? It would seem from the context that each of the (significant) branches taken individually would need to be long. Does length of days show that each day is long, or is "length of days" an intensive plural, denoting the lifespan of a particular kind of individual? That is, are the days themselves taken in combination being counted?




But it says length of gates. Does that mean stuff other than the gates are being measured? Can you find any reference to gates being measured like this? If the gates were being measured, the use of orek would imply that each gate was the same width.




Sorry I' misquoted the Pulpit there.
In any case, I still go with either a copyist error, or ma besay il. If it is a copyist error, how would that change the existence of an error in every available authenticated manuscript?
So you're left with ma besay-il. I'll agree that the discrepancy doesn't matter, but "doesn't matter" doesn't equate to "doesn't exist." And equating the two conditions does matter.

Next comes the point about John's claim that "no man has seen God at any time" when compared with the records that more than 70 people have seen God. The reconciliation is a simple matter - but I haven't seen a commentary yet that uses it. The attempted reworking of "see" with regard to "seeing God", in particular, simply abandons any attempt to read the scriptures properly. This one cannot be dismissed with a hand waving claim of ma besay-il.

Quantum Weirdness
09-01-2014, 06:03 AM
So you're saying that orek implies that the branches are long when their combined length is measured when they are laid end to end? It would seem from the context that each of the (significant) branches taken individually would need to be long. Does length of days show that each day is long, or is "length of days" an intensive plural, denoting the lifespan of a particular kind of individual? That is, are the days themselves taken in combination being counted?


It refers to the totality of the length, yes. And each branch would be long to make up the total length. The length of days also references totality of length.



If the gates were being measured, the use of orek would imply that each gate was the same width.

Two questions
Where do you get this?
How do we know that each gate wasn't the same width?


If it is a copyist error, how would that change the existence of an error in every available authenticated manuscript?
So you're left with ma besay-il. I'll agree that the discrepancy doesn't matter, but "doesn't matter" doesn't equate to "doesn't exist." And equating the two conditions does matter.

Sigh. Ma besay il means that neither 3 nor 4 nor 5 cubits would be inaccurate because exact length was never intended to be conveyed and that these measures were all approximations.


Next comes the point about John's claim that "no man has seen God at any time" when compared with the records that more than 70 people have seen God. The reconciliation is a simple matter - but I haven't seen a commentary yet that uses it. The attempted reworking of "see" with regard to "seeing God", in particular, simply abandons any attempt to read the scriptures properly. This one cannot be dismissed with a hand waving claim of ma besay-il.

The word for "see" seems to mean something like perceive or "understand" (e.g. Matt 13:14). So the meaning would be that no man has understood God.

tabibito
09-01-2014, 06:48 AM
The word for "see" in Matthew 13:14 is "blepo", and the word for "perceive" in Matthew 13:14 is "eido".
The word used in John 1:18 (No man has seen God) is orao. And in 1 John 4:12 (No man has seen God) is theaomai.
Therefore the words used in Matthew aren't relevant (to John's statements),
orao - I see, look upon, experience, perceive, discern, beware.
theaomai: I see, behold, contemplate, look upon, view; I see, visit.
Given that the context is the same, orao and theaomai will take the meaning that is common to both.
The meanings common to both terms are: directly - I see, look upon. synonymously - I view, behold, see.
So checking the Old Testament record where Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel saw God (Exodus 24:10-11)
The use of eido in Exodus 24:10 matches Matthew 13:14 - but verse 11 doesn't: the word used in translation of verse 11 to Koine Greek is orao - the word used in John 1:18
So - John says no man has orao-d God at any time, but Genesis shows that men orao-d God.

Quantum Weirdness
09-01-2014, 08:29 AM
The word for "see" in Matthew 13:14 is "blepo", and the word for "perceive" in Matthew 13:14 is "eido".
The word used in John 1:18 (No man has seen God) is orao. And in 1 John 4:12 (No man has seen God) is theaomai.
Therefore the words used in Matthew aren't relevant (to John's statements),

Eh what are you using?
I found here (http://www.studylight.org/desk/interlinear.cgi?ref=39013014) that Matt does use horao and over here (http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=1492), I found that eido isn't found in that verse.
"Theaomai" is used in John 4:12 but that also has the meaning to perceive (http://www.studylight.org/lexicons/greek/gwview.cgi?n=2300). (see third definition.)



orao - I see, look upon, experience, perceive, discern, beware.
theaomai: I see, behold, contemplate, look upon, view; I see, visit.
Given that the context is the same, orao and theaomai will take the meaning that is common to both.
The meanings common to both terms are: directly - I see, look upon. synonymously - I view, behold, see.
So checking the Old Testament record where Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel saw God (Exodus 24:10-11)
The use of eido in Exodus 24:10 matches Matthew 13:14 - but verse 11 doesn't: the word used in translation of verse 11 to Koine Greek is orao - the word used in John 1:18. So - John says no man has orao-d God at any time, but Genesis shows that men orao-d God.

Ok so the greek translation screwed up?

tabibito
09-01-2014, 08:50 AM
Matthew 13:14

Byzantine Majority Text

καὶ βλέποντες (blepo) βλέψετε (blepo), καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε (eido)
Westott/Hort NA27 variants

καὶ βλέποντες (blepo) βλέψετε (blepo), καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε (eido)
Textus Receptus

καὶ βλέποντες (blepo) βλέψετε (blepo), καὶ οὐ μὴ ἴδητε.(eido)


Ok so the greek translation screwed up?
Not in the least. The Hebrew uses two different words for "saw", only one is ambiguous as to meaning "saw"/"perceive (with the mind)"

The first occurrence is the Hebrew ra'ah (Qal)

to see, look at, inspect, perceive, consider

(Qal)

to see

to see, perceive

to see, have vision

to look at, see, regard, look after, see after, learn about, observe, watch, look upon, look out, find out

to see, observe, consider, look at, give attention to, discern, distinguish

to look at, gaze at

The second (verse 11) is chazah


to see, perceive, look, behold, prophesy, provide

(Qal)

to see, behold

to see as a seer in the ecstatic state

to see, perceive

with the intelligence

to see (by experience)

to provide

Exo 24:10 and they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the very heavens in its clarity. 11 But on the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand. So they saw God, and they ate and drank.

The author is quite explicit in pointing out what he meant by saying "they saw God" - They saw God but he did not lay his hand on them ... They saw God and they ate and they drank.
He is pointing out that contrary to expectation - they saw God and yet they lived.

Quantum Weirdness
09-01-2014, 10:11 AM
Ok so they had some perception of God in the OT but did they fully perceive him (i.e. see him in his true form?). Comparing scripture with scripture, we find that 1 Tim 6:16 gives a clue as to what John means.


who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen

It refers to God in the unapproachable light (i.e. his true form). That's how we should understand John 1:18 and 1 John 4:12.

tabibito
09-01-2014, 10:17 AM
How about we take it that John used a secondary meaning of "God" when he said that, and avoid having to mess with the plain statements of the Old Testament - bearing in mind that Moses and company isn't the only OT record of people seeing God.
The passage of which 1 Timothy 6:16 is a part does indeed give the answer to the problem, but that answer is in verse 13 - I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus ... Who is Paul referring to when he says God?

tabibito
09-01-2014, 10:30 AM
If that doesn't satisfy - check John 5:37 and 6:46 (Just as a matter of comparing scripture with scripture.)

Quantum Weirdness
09-01-2014, 11:02 AM
How about we take it that John used a secondary meaning of "God" when he said that, and avoid having to mess with the plain statements of the Old Testament - bearing in mind that Moses and company isn't the only OT record of people seeing God.
The passage of which 1 Timothy 6:16 is a part does indeed give the answer to the problem, but that answer is in verse 13 - I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus ... Who is Paul referring to when he says God?



If that doesn't satisfy - check John 5:37 and 6:46 (Just as a matter of comparing scripture with scripture.)

Well that's a good one too.

tabibito
09-01-2014, 08:18 PM
Well that's a good one too.

too?

Only if redefining words to make them fit with a doctrinal view were valid could "too" be said.

AkByR64
10-18-2014, 10:53 AM
It seems to me Christians need an interpretation of Genesis 1 that appears to make sense. It doesn't have to be the RIGHT one, just seems to make sense.

People who have tried to make sense out of Genesis 1 are Oxymixmudd and GRMorton. They had a debate recently, but unfortunately it seems GRMorton is too busy.

A point to keep in mind is that the Lord God is timeless (out of time, if you prefer). Something that from our human perspective occurred in the past and another thing that will soon occur in the future are things that occur all at once from God's perspective. Not a good way to put it, perhaps, but about the best I can explain.

Another point is that God may be frequently anthropomorphized in the Bible, even though that may distort the truth. We humans are simply not able to understand God's nature in human terms.

If you have a favorite interpretation, go ahead, present it here!

What does that got to with Genesis 1?

To me, Genesis 1 or rather verse 1 is a general statement of everything that God created. The question we should ask is does the heavens and the earth include the universe? Does it include our solar system or all the planets we know so far? It doesn't seem to mention it in Gen 1, however, I could be wrong. Some argue that "the heavens and the earth" is an idiom for the entire universe. Maybe somebody can elaborate more on this. I apologized in advance if I was be off topic.

But something to help you understand Gen 1 better - Gen 1 is man's imagination..he is writing about his thoughts. Man can only write of what exists...man never observed a creation...he can only observe matter having effect on existing matter...so he can only imagine what occurred. Ultimately though, just as with issues of 'outside of time', God's relationship to existance is so far beyond what we experience in our current limited state, we simply cannot define Him. We cannot come up with any mental concept that contains Him. So all we can do is represent Him with our concepts, but since those representations will always be flawed, there will always be misunderstandings that the skeptics can seize on to say 'see, God doesn't exist'. LOL. But all the really means is that our attempts to explain God through concepts fails.

Yeng

Truthseeker
10-18-2014, 03:18 PM
What does that got to with Genesis 1?

To me, Genesis 1 or rather verse 1 is a general statement of everything that God created. The question we should ask is does the heavens and the earth include the universe? Does it include our solar system or all the planets we know so far? It doesn't seem to mention it in Gen 1, however, I could be wrong. Some argue that "the heavens and the earth" is an idiom for the entire universe. Maybe somebody can elaborate more on this. I apologized in advance if I was be off topic.

But something to help you understand Gen 1 better - Gen 1 is man's imagination..he is writing about his thoughts. Man can only write of what exists...man never observed a creation...he can only observe matter having effect on existing matter...so he can only imagine what occurred. Ultimately though, just as with issues of 'outside of time', God's relationship to existance is so far beyond what we experience in our current limited state, we simply cannot define Him. We cannot come up with any mental concept that contains Him. So all we can do is represent Him with our concepts, but since those representations will always be flawed, there will always be misunderstandings that the skeptics can seize on to say 'see, God doesn't exist'. LOL. But all the really means is that our attempts to explain God through concepts fails.

YengWe still can comprehend "news" of what God did. The parting of the Red Sea; Moses' staff turning into a snake; the plague of locusts in Egypt; Jesus' ascension; etc.

Another point. Science appears to contradict the world views of many Christians, Jorge in particular. There are many various interpretations of Genesis. Which one comes closest to being the correct one?

JohnnyP
10-18-2014, 04:15 PM
My take on Genesis 1, commands for creation were issued in 6 days, but between those special days millions/billions/etc. years, creation evolves indefinitely, animals to other humans on earth.

Day 4 isn't creation of literal sun, moon, stars but is about events of Genesis 2 that take place in the heavenly realm not in this physical one.

Elsewhere in the Bible the sun is symbolic of God's throne and righteousness. The moon reflects various phases of light and darkness. Stars are symbolic of sons of God.

So God's authority, don't eat; knowledge of good and evil; direct creation of Adam as a firstfruits and prototypical man, before humans evolved on earth.

The animals in Genesis 1 come before humans, the helpmeet creatures including the serpent come after Adam and are cherubim in the heavenly realm, appearing as something like those in Ezekiel: ox/cattle, eagle/fowl, lion/beasts of the field. Adam and cherubim all sons of God.

When Adam fell he came out of Heaven into the physical dimension, while cherubim like Satan remained, he wasn't a talking snake but like an angel.

That's a start on where I am with it.

Truthseeker
10-18-2014, 04:36 PM
So God's authority, don't eat;:huh: So biting into the apple was the first time Eve and Adam started to eat? My guess is that you meant the commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

AkByR64
10-18-2014, 04:38 PM
We still can comprehend "news" of what God did. The parting of the Red Sea; Moses' staff turning into a snake; the plague of locusts in Egypt; Jesus' ascension; etc.

Another point. Science appears to contradict the world views of many Christians, Jorge in particular. There are many various interpretation of Genesis. Which one comes closest to being the correct one?

My views are pretty close to those of Ken Ham, and the website https://answersingenesis.org/ they go over a lot of the scientific evidence, and biblical evidence, that shows that both are still compatible. The problem with science is that they cannot prove their same state past, that they need and build all models on. All the things, laws, they know and use to make the claims about the past are based on what they know now on earth only. If the past, laws, was different none of there models would have any validity. I figure that in the past, things and laws were different, this is why the Flood could happen, Garden, 1000 year lives etc. The future will also be different, as eternal life and angels etc. Science was only born in this limited state and have no business to speculate about the past or future. So it becomes a question only of belief. I can then be content with my beliefs also, knowing that no science can possibly overthrow them.

AkByR64
10-18-2014, 05:01 PM
My take on Genesis 1, commands for creation were issued in 6 days, but between those special days millions/billions/etc. years, creation evolves indefinitely, animals to other humans on earth.

That's a terrible argument for one reason, the text explicitly says 'evening and morning' the 1st day, 2nd day etc. That is an explicit reference to ordinary day as opposed millions and billions which is how the word is usually used in that context. Clearly, the intended meaning is ordinary days. That's not my interpretation, that is literally what it says, as defined, 'defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1'. You'll have to go so far out just to stretched the Scripture just to make it fit old earth.

JohnnyP
10-18-2014, 05:03 PM
:huh: So biting into the apple was the first time Eve and Adam started to eat? My guess is that you meant the commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Yes, and I think the fruit is a metaphor for something else in a Heavenly realm, not literal fruit.

Truthseeker
10-18-2014, 09:19 PM
Yes, and I think the fruit is a metaphor for something else in a Heavenly realm, not literal fruit.Why metaphorical, not literal?

JohnnyP
10-19-2014, 10:39 AM
Why metaphorical, not literal?

Trees are sometimes symbolic of people and kingdoms, fruit as the works of those kingdoms. The Tree of Life is symbolic of God's Kingdom, its fruit is eternal life, eating it is acceptance of that belief. The Tree of Knowledge represents Man's Kingdom that doesn't need the one God, its fruit is eternal death, eating it is acceptance of that belief.

So the fruit of the latter is like polytheism, a belief that there can be more than one god, or hard atheism, the belief that there are no higher gods. Whether or not there was literal fruit eaten as a sign of these concepts -- why do heavenly bodies need food anyway -- isn't really important, the lack of faith in God was.

robrecht
10-19-2014, 10:43 AM
Trees are sometimes symbolic of people and kingdoms, fruit as the works of those kingdoms. The Tree of Life is symbolic of God's Kingdom, its fruit is eternal life, eating it is acceptance of that belief. The Tree of Knowledge represents Man's Kingdom that doesn't need the one God, its fruit is eternal death, eating it is acceptance of that belief.

So the fruit of the latter is like polytheism, a belief that there can be more than one god, or hard atheism, the belief that there are no higher gods. Whether or not there was literal fruit eaten as a sign of these concepts -- why do heavenly bodies need food anyway -- isn't really important, the lack of faith in God was.This is a beautiful intertexual interpretation. I never thougth to bring Daniel or the parables of Jesus to bear on the interpretation of Genesis 2-3.

Truthseeker
10-19-2014, 04:42 PM
Trees are sometimes symbolic of people and kingdoms, fruit as the works of those kingdoms. The Tree of Life is symbolic of God's Kingdom, its fruit is eternal life, eating it is acceptance of that belief. The Tree of Knowledge represents Man's Kingdom that doesn't need the one God, its fruit is eternal death, eating it is acceptance of that belief.

So the fruit of the latter is like polytheism, a belief that there can be more than one god, or hard atheism, the belief that there are no higher gods. Whether or not there was literal fruit eaten as a sign of these concepts -- why do heavenly bodies need food anyway -- isn't really important, the lack of faith in God was.I second robrecht. However, what I was asking is, how to know when to interpret literally and when to interpret metaphorically. Also, I am not asking about interpreting Genesis 2 or later chapters.

JohnnyP
10-19-2014, 07:58 PM
I second robrecht. However, what I was asking is, how to know when to interpret literally and when to interpret metaphorically. Also, I am not asking about interpreting Genesis 2 or later chapters.

Genesis 2 came up as my understanding of Day 4 in Genesis 1. As to what's literal or not, I suppose the rest of the Bible such as prophecies about good/evil figs in Jeremiah and of Jesus about fig trees bearing fruit show that maybe we should always look for a metaphor, and after that reason and question to see if it should be literal or not. Like as I said, do people in Heaven really need to eat food, do they still go to the bathroom? Maybe, maybe not, but it's just my own feeling that it's more about the metaphor than about literally eating fruit.

Other times we may need to hold off on a conclusion until more data comes in, we have to do that with some prophecies anyway. If I lived thousands of years ago I may have believed the earth came first then the sun. Today we know better.

Truthseeker
10-19-2014, 08:21 PM
Genesis 2 came up as my understanding of Day 4 in Genesis 1. As to what's literal or not, I suppose the rest of the Bible such as prophecies about good/evil figs in Jeremiah and of Jesus about fig trees bearing fruit show that maybe we should always look for a metaphor, and after that reason and question to see if it should be literal or not. Like as I said, do people in Heaven really need to eat food, do they still go to the bathroom? Maybe, maybe not, but it's just my own feeling that it's more about the metaphor than about literally eating fruit.

Other times we may need to hold off on a conclusion until more data comes in, we have to do that with some prophecies anyway. If I lived thousands of years ago I may have believed the earth came first then the sun. Today we know better.Oh, certainly Genesis 2 may be used to interpret Genesis 1 when it is relevant. And if Genesis 2 itself needs interpretation . . .

JohnnyP
10-19-2014, 11:40 PM
Oh, certainly Genesis 2 may be used to interpret Genesis 1 when it is relevant. And if Genesis 2 itself needs interpretation . . .

...then you may have to go elsewhere to understand what it may mean. Interpreting Genesis 1 also depends on how we treat Genesis 2. A creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 is mandatory if Genesis 2 is viewed as simply going into more detail about Genesis 1, forget about theistic evolution.

But like I said something's fishy about it, since for one thing fish aren't mentioned in Genesis 2. And the most obvious, a plain reading suggests that those creatures are created after Adam, unlike the account in Genesis 1.

And so we can start questioning things like, did snakes really used to talk and walk around, and if Satan was that old serpent did he possess a snake and snakes were punished for it?

And so on until we figure out none of that's really in the Bible, but what is in the Bible is that Satan was a cherub in the Garden. And cherubim described elsewhere in Ezekiel and Revelation resemble an ox/eagle/lion/man. And compare that in the beginning there was Adam and made as his helpers, cattle/ox, fowl/eagle, and beast/lion.

From there we can see two different accounts to resolve the contradiction: creation of Adam and cherubim in Genesis 2, and evolution of animals to other humans on earth in Genesis 1. An understanding of Genesis 2 also helps answer the contradiction of sun after earth in Genesis 1.

So it's not like each chapter or verse is going to be an island easily understood all by itself, and sometimes it does seem to go in circles. But like Jesus said:

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Truthseeker
10-20-2014, 03:25 PM
...then you may have to go elsewhere to understand what it may mean. Interpreting Genesis 1 also depends on how we treat Genesis 2. A creationist interpretation of Genesis 1 is mandatory if Genesis 2 is viewed as simply going into more detail about Genesis 1, forget about theistic evolution.

But like I said something's fishy about it, since for one thing fish aren't mentioned in Genesis 2. And the most obvious, a plain reading suggests that those creatures are created after Adam, unlike the account in Genesis 1.

And so we can start questioning things like, did snakes really used to talk and walk around, and if Satan was that old serpent did he possess a snake and snakes were punished for it?

And so on until we figure out none of that's really in the Bible, but what is in the Bible is that Satan was a cherub in the Garden. And cherubim described elsewhere in Ezekiel and Revelation resemble an ox/eagle/lion/man. And compare that in the beginning there was Adam and made as his helpers, cattle/ox, fowl/eagle, and beast/lion.

From there we can see two different accounts to resolve the contradiction: creation of Adam and cherubim in Genesis 2, and evolution of animals to other humans on earth in Genesis 1. An understanding of Genesis 2 also helps answer the contradiction of sun after earth in Genesis 1.

So it's not like each chapter or verse is going to be an island easily understood all by itself, and sometimes it does seem to go in circles. But like Jesus said:

Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

Matthew 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.Now someone is bringing up alleged contradictions, which subject have been argued over like forever including in TWeb. Said subject could create a thread dozens of pages long. If you want to argue contradictions, I'm not sure if there is a thread going on already. Let's wait and see if someone suggests a thread.

JohnnyP
10-20-2014, 08:37 PM
Now someone is bringing up alleged contradictions, which subject have been argued over like forever including in TWeb. Said subject could create a thread dozens of pages long. If you want to argue contradictions, I'm not sure if there is a thread going on already. Let's wait and see if someone suggests a thread.

I guess I'm not sure how you are asking Genesis 1 to make sense if in part you aren't also asking how can the earth come before the sun, or how can animals come first then man in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2 Adam seems to come first then his helpmeet cattle/fowl/beasts of the field. Without addressing those issues Genesis 1 is nonsensical, but that's just me. What else about Genesis 1 do you think needs to be made sense of?

Truthseeker
10-21-2014, 03:49 PM
I guess I'm not sure how you are asking Genesis 1 to make sense if in part you aren't also asking how can the earth come before the sun, or how can animals come first then man in Genesis 1, but in Genesis 2 Adam seems to come first then his helpmeet cattle/fowl/beasts of the field. Without addressing those issues Genesis 1 is nonsensical, but that's just me. What else about Genesis 1 do you think needs to be made sense of?Apparently the ancient Hebrews were much less fussy about chronological order than you are. Also, timing indication is different in Hebrew than modern English together with the convention that the order of appearance in the text usually is also chronological. You should not automatically assume that, absent timing indication, if an event is described before another event in the text, then the former therefore comes in time before the other event.

As for Earth's coming into being before the sun, remember the above paragraph. Also bear in mind that God does not move through time as we do. Or, God is eternal. Timeless. Out of time. One could say that God commanded the Earth to come into being at the same time as God commanded the sun and moon to come into being, but that would be wrong, because God is out of time. Maybe we can say, In the beginning God commanded the Earth, the sun, the moon, the plants, Eve, etc., to come into being. The universe and everything in it, in the beginning.

Anything else?

JohnnyP
10-21-2014, 05:13 PM
Apparently the ancient Hebrews were much less fussy about chronological order than you are. Also, timing indication is different in Hebrew than modern English together with the convention that the order of appearance in the text usually is also chronological. You should not automatically assume that, absent timing indication, if an event is described before another event in the text, then the former therefore comes in time before the other event.

I don't assume. Aside from clear indication of timing there's also context and reason. Ancient Hebrews were also "fussy" if you want to call it that, that's why legends about Lilith and such exist, to resolve contradictions between Genesis 1 & 2. In fact my view that Adam's first helpers weren't animals like those created in Genesis 1 but rather cherubim parallels that rabbinic tradition in some ways.

For example Genesis 1 says God commanded fish, fowl, cattle, etc. Then it says God made man to have dominion over those animals. There's no reason to question timing since the context is that animals are already existing as God is planning to make man to have dominion over them.

While in Genesis 2, God makes Adam, decides Adam shouldn't be alone, and then makes creatures to be his helpers. There's no reason to question timing since the context is that Adam is already existing alone when God made helpers for him, creatures then Eve.

Etc.


As for Earth's coming into being before the sun, remember the above paragraph. Also bear in mind that God does not move through time as we do. Or, God is eternal. Timeless. Out of time. One could say that God commanded the Earth to come into being at the same time as God commanded the sun and moon to come into being, but that would be wrong, because God is out of time. Maybe we can say, In the beginning God commanded the Earth, the sun, the moon, the plants, Eve, etc., to come into being. The universe and everything in it, in the beginning.

God is omnipresent and omnipotent, it's not like He's trapped or locked out of our temporal existence, Jesus is proof of that, for Christians anyway.

But yes while God didn't have to wait on our time to see all creation unfold, being omniscient anyway, again I don't see a reason to change up the order of what's written according to how it unfolded.


Anything else?

I don't know, what else doesn't make sense?

Truthseeker
10-21-2014, 08:21 PM
I don't know, what else doesn't make sense?Please unsubscribe, stop wasting others' time.

JohnnyP
10-21-2014, 10:50 PM
Please unsubscribe, stop wasting others' time.

Sure it's your gig, but you should edit this part out if some interpretations traumatize you too much:


If you have a favorite interpretation, go ahead, present it here!

The least you could do is admit you were wrong about me being fussier than ancient Hebrews about timing since they created legends of Lilith and such to explain contradictions between Genesis 1&2.

If you can ever prove me wrong in one of my threads I won't banish you, I'll admit it and move on. We're only human. Deal?