Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Creation Enigma
Quite real.
Puzzle takes a bit of thinking about to solve though.
Not spam - only posted here.
Only apologists could solve.
Puzzle takes a bit of thinking about to solve though.
Not spam - only posted here.
Only apologists could solve.
Yes, my Bible is overflowing with the term "vegan". Stuart, get off the drugs, now!
Robert wrote: "Yes, my Bible is overflowing with the term "vegan". Stuart, get off the drugs, now!"
Bit ad hominem, Robert!
It's a puzzle, a riddle, something in the vein of a parable. When you solve it, it becomes biblically clear.
Another small hint may be in order here: "I am the bread of life."
Please think of the riddle, not of me. It's actually quite a serious study in an edutaining and challenging way - as parables can be.
Bit ad hominem, Robert!
It's a puzzle, a riddle, something in the vein of a parable. When you solve it, it becomes biblically clear.
Another small hint may be in order here: "I am the bread of life."
Please think of the riddle, not of me. It's actually quite a serious study in an edutaining and challenging way - as parables can be.
Gotta admit, when I first saw your name I thought you were him:
I need a rules clarification. Are we trying to find a Biblical solution? Meaning, the answers are found by creatively interpreting scripture?
Lee wrote: "I need a rules clarification. Are we trying to find a Biblical solution? Meaning, the answers are found by creatively interpreting scripture?"
Yes,
And yes
I tend to leave "rules" in the vestibule - quite free rein from my point of view. Without being TOO polemical, of course.
(So much for me leaving it as a puzzle for a week or two. Nonetheless it is very unusual and needs some explanation.)
Two final hints:
"I am the light of the world."
"Feed my sheep."
Comes down to analysis of what may have been cryptic terminology and imagery used by priests in Jesus' time - hence the tentative Thiering reference.
Quite a challenge in a number of ways. Not that I have anything much more than speculative hypotheses to offer. But they are fresh, new/ish horizons for the adventurous to explore.
Yes,
And yes
I tend to leave "rules" in the vestibule - quite free rein from my point of view. Without being TOO polemical, of course.
(So much for me leaving it as a puzzle for a week or two. Nonetheless it is very unusual and needs some explanation.)
Two final hints:
"I am the light of the world."
"Feed my sheep."
Comes down to analysis of what may have been cryptic terminology and imagery used by priests in Jesus' time - hence the tentative Thiering reference.
Quite a challenge in a number of ways. Not that I have anything much more than speculative hypotheses to offer. But they are fresh, new/ish horizons for the adventurous to explore.
Just noticed your post,yes when God spoke and said "let there be light", the light was Christ, not the sun. Hence Paul writes all things are from Him and through Christ all things were created.
He is the source of all things, the "bread of life". From His power all things are held together and exist. This is not just a physical energy dynamic but also a spiritual reality. Not that the two are entirely distinct.
Is that what you are getting at?
Joshua wrote: "Just noticed your post,
yes when God spoke and said "let there be light", the light was Christ, not the sun. Hence Paul writes all things are from Him and through Christ all things were created.
..."
Certainly in the same vein, Joshua.
I hasten to say that I don't use the term "right track", because I doubt there is a right, and, ipso facto, a wrong track here.
Continue the food analogies, and consider the "evolution" towards consuming more complex forms of "food".
Thank you for participating.
yes when God spoke and said "let there be light", the light was Christ, not the sun. Hence Paul writes all things are from Him and through Christ all things were created.
..."
Certainly in the same vein, Joshua.
I hasten to say that I don't use the term "right track", because I doubt there is a right, and, ipso facto, a wrong track here.
Continue the food analogies, and consider the "evolution" towards consuming more complex forms of "food".
Thank you for participating.
What comes to mind is this:T-Rex was vegan, so they say, because there was no sin before Adam's Fall, and therefore no animal death. Fish, or the men the disciples were called to become fishers-of did not eat porridge until they had evolved into sheep (become disciples) because Peter was told, not to feed the fish, but to feed the sheep. Only when they had become true disciples would they be ready to digest more complicated meat (assuming porridge has meat in it - I am not really familiar)
The Adam Family looked like the light of the world (Jesus) because, rather than being clothed in linens, they were, so they say, clothed in light or righteousness, whereas the leviathan's parts were unconcealed. Presumably the trees could be created before the sun because the sun was unnecessary given the presence of the 'light of the world.'
I would guess that, just as the fish, the sheep, the meat, the light, the clothing etc. stand for something other than literal animals, foods, clothes and photons, so also the creation events do not necessarily describe a six-day physical chronology of the world.
Thiering, according to what I can find of her on the internet, would extend this principle to the gospel narratives so that there is a hidden actual history of Jesus (something along the lines of surviving the crucifixion and then marrying and divorcing Mary Magdalene) behind the facade of literal descriptions.
Jake wrote: "What comes to mind is this:
T-Rex was vegan, so they say, because there was no sin before Adam's Fall, and therefore no animal death. Fish, or the men the disciples were called to become fishers-o..."
Thank you, Jake: we're pretty much in the same hymn book here.
If the "light" references Elohim or Jesus - who might the Sun, the Moon and the Stars be referencing ...?
Bearing in mind, if you will, that Genesis was written in pre-Rabbinic Judaism and pre-Christian times.
T-Rex was vegan, so they say, because there was no sin before Adam's Fall, and therefore no animal death. Fish, or the men the disciples were called to become fishers-o..."
Thank you, Jake: we're pretty much in the same hymn book here.
If the "light" references Elohim or Jesus - who might the Sun, the Moon and the Stars be referencing ...?
Bearing in mind, if you will, that Genesis was written in pre-Rabbinic Judaism and pre-Christian times.
What stupidity - of course T-REX had teeth like that to eat clover!
Is animal death REALLY death? I bet a bug or two got squashed in the Garden. But maybe NOT?
Robert wrote: "What stupidity - of course T-REX had teeth like that to eat clover!"
Ad hominem response ... again, Robert. Certainly not scholarly and certainly not what we would expect from a gentleman of mature years.
Love makes no room for insulting others. It's in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13:4-5, NKJV. "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil"
Perhaps you could consider extending Jake a little love ...? He's certainly put thought and research effort into the topic at hand, and seems a polite young man.
Perhaps you could also share with us the wisdom of your insights into biblical analogy and metaphor ...?
Ad hominem response ... again, Robert. Certainly not scholarly and certainly not what we would expect from a gentleman of mature years.
Love makes no room for insulting others. It's in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13:4-5, NKJV. "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil"
Perhaps you could consider extending Jake a little love ...? He's certainly put thought and research effort into the topic at hand, and seems a polite young man.
Perhaps you could also share with us the wisdom of your insights into biblical analogy and metaphor ...?
Initially:
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And at a later stage in human development:
2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
And at a later stage in human development:
2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
Stuart wrote: "If the "light" references Elohim or Jesus - who might the Sun, the Moon and the Stars be referencing ...?Bearing in mind, if you will, that Genesis was written in pre-Rabbinic Judaism and pre-Christian times"
I should say that my response is somewhat based on my upbringing, and an assortment of things I have read, and not necessarily my own view. Personally, I don't think the author(s) of Genesis had Jesus qua Jesus in mind at all when he(they) wrote about the light, just as I don't think they would have dreamed Paul would one day argue that Hagar represented the Law that must be cast out.
Since you mention Elohim, I would guess that perhaps you might think the sun, moon and stars represent 'the rest' of the Elohim (like in Psalm 82).
Elohim, from what I understand is plural - a class and not a proper name. But perhaps, as the rest of the elohim were abandoned or rejected or edited away, the class came to possess one member, and so that surviving member, being alone in the class, BECAME the class - and then God would be coterminous with Elohim.
Do you see the language regarding the sun, moon and stars as evidence that the original story was written about the Elohim and not about THE one single Elohim?
Robert, you're trying to turn theology into history. Quit ruining the fun.
Jake wrote: "Stuart wrote: "If the "light" references Elohim or Jesus - who might the Sun, the Moon and the Stars be referencing ...?
Bearing in mind, if you will, that Genesis was written in pre-Rabbinic Juda..."
Pretty much yes to all of the above, Jake. Good to have you along for the adventure - not because we seem to have lobbed in the same hymn book (which is, of itself, from my point of view, a good thing)but because you are exploring beyond the bounds of your upbringing - also, from my point of view, a good thing.
My riddle is quite my own by the way: set to reflect the straw men of the speculative hypotheses I posit from time to time. I've shredded more straw men of my own than I have now still standing, and of those that remain upright from my own investigations, I like to put up in the paddock for others to throw rocks at. If some of them stay standing, they may well have some merit for further investigation.
Here we/I'm dealing with analogy and metaphor, and many ideas that spring to mind are intuitive, when trying to determine what the writers were conveying.
You seem to be enjoying and benefiting from this dialogue, so I'll pop in a little more of my perspective and see if it takes you down the same path. And, please, I do appreciate objective criticism and analysis from an independent, scholarly mind - it's what I'm here for (mostly).
Yes to the class of Elohim reduced to one surviving member and God coterminous with Elohim (love the term "coterminous", I'm going to use it).
However, I suspect the Sun, Moon and Stars (after reading Thiering) refer to the priestly hierarchy associated with Elohim - have a sniff down that path and continue to think of Fishermen, Shepherds and Gardeners (we'll come to Potters and Carpenters later).
To me the priests (I strongly suspect priests) who wrote Genesis intended for it to be understood in different ways by different levels of people. They quite deliberately did not give it one, single "correct" meaning - the writings were always meant to have multiple meanings (I suggest).
At the very simplest level, the first chapters were of a literal creation and flood, and they served as a satisfactory explanation for the non-priestly people of the day. But the Jewish priests who did the writing were, I suggest, highly sophisticated and learned men who added a number of layers of meaning from a number of periods in their history. They also, I suspect, added layers of meaning that reflected the hierarchy of their priestly culture.
You wrote:
I would guess that, just as the fish, the sheep, the meat, the light, the clothing etc. stand for something other than literal animals, foods, clothes and photons, so also the creation events do not necessarily describe a six-day physical chronology of the world.
Quite agree with you here. If the Jewish priests were adding layers of down-to-earth analogy, metaphor and allegory (not a "Bible Code") they would have, of course, known they weren't writing the events of a literal creation.
Please let me know what you think. I'm enjoying sharing the dialogue.
Bearing in mind, if you will, that Genesis was written in pre-Rabbinic Juda..."
Pretty much yes to all of the above, Jake. Good to have you along for the adventure - not because we seem to have lobbed in the same hymn book (which is, of itself, from my point of view, a good thing)but because you are exploring beyond the bounds of your upbringing - also, from my point of view, a good thing.
My riddle is quite my own by the way: set to reflect the straw men of the speculative hypotheses I posit from time to time. I've shredded more straw men of my own than I have now still standing, and of those that remain upright from my own investigations, I like to put up in the paddock for others to throw rocks at. If some of them stay standing, they may well have some merit for further investigation.
Here we/I'm dealing with analogy and metaphor, and many ideas that spring to mind are intuitive, when trying to determine what the writers were conveying.
You seem to be enjoying and benefiting from this dialogue, so I'll pop in a little more of my perspective and see if it takes you down the same path. And, please, I do appreciate objective criticism and analysis from an independent, scholarly mind - it's what I'm here for (mostly).
Yes to the class of Elohim reduced to one surviving member and God coterminous with Elohim (love the term "coterminous", I'm going to use it).
However, I suspect the Sun, Moon and Stars (after reading Thiering) refer to the priestly hierarchy associated with Elohim - have a sniff down that path and continue to think of Fishermen, Shepherds and Gardeners (we'll come to Potters and Carpenters later).
To me the priests (I strongly suspect priests) who wrote Genesis intended for it to be understood in different ways by different levels of people. They quite deliberately did not give it one, single "correct" meaning - the writings were always meant to have multiple meanings (I suggest).
At the very simplest level, the first chapters were of a literal creation and flood, and they served as a satisfactory explanation for the non-priestly people of the day. But the Jewish priests who did the writing were, I suggest, highly sophisticated and learned men who added a number of layers of meaning from a number of periods in their history. They also, I suspect, added layers of meaning that reflected the hierarchy of their priestly culture.
You wrote:
I would guess that, just as the fish, the sheep, the meat, the light, the clothing etc. stand for something other than literal animals, foods, clothes and photons, so also the creation events do not necessarily describe a six-day physical chronology of the world.
Quite agree with you here. If the Jewish priests were adding layers of down-to-earth analogy, metaphor and allegory (not a "Bible Code") they would have, of course, known they weren't writing the events of a literal creation.
Please let me know what you think. I'm enjoying sharing the dialogue.
Stuart, there are some here who equate following Jesus with intolerance. Please know that most of us disagree. We're enjoying the puzzle.
Quick notes:
"In the beginning Elohim/Theos/God created the heaven and the earth."
No agreement on when "the beginning" was. Dates cannot be determined until after creation of animals and the creation of unspecified numbers of male and female Homo sapiens called Adam - or my "Adam Family". The Elohim were, for a certain period in Middle East history, the plurality of male and female deities who were God for the Phoenicians/Canaanites - in much the same way as the plurality of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God for some specific (but not all) Christians, and how the concept of God is a plurality for Hindus.
The immediate appearance of Homo sapiens on Earth during the biblical creation of Genesis 1, can be very precisely calculated to 4004 BCE, by counting the who begat whoms (Answers in Genesis can help with the arithmetic) Unless, however, we look at Genesis chapter 2, where the single male Yahweh Elohim/Kurios Theos/Lord God created the single male Homo sapiens, on the single day of his creation, from mud, BEFORE he created the dingoes and the dinosaurs. If humans and dinosaurs occupied the planet at the same time, and a single human male was created FIRST, we have a lot of explaining to do about when and what "In the Beginning" is all about.
Quick notes as I have time.
Thank you to those who have contributed directly to the topic in hand. Please give me/us more.
And thank you to whoever deleted the stuff that wasn't on topic. Please give me/us less.
P.S. I quite deliberately know very little about science - helps keep the focus firmly on biblical topics only.
"In the beginning Elohim/Theos/God created the heaven and the earth."
No agreement on when "the beginning" was. Dates cannot be determined until after creation of animals and the creation of unspecified numbers of male and female Homo sapiens called Adam - or my "Adam Family". The Elohim were, for a certain period in Middle East history, the plurality of male and female deities who were God for the Phoenicians/Canaanites - in much the same way as the plurality of Yahweh, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God for some specific (but not all) Christians, and how the concept of God is a plurality for Hindus.
The immediate appearance of Homo sapiens on Earth during the biblical creation of Genesis 1, can be very precisely calculated to 4004 BCE, by counting the who begat whoms (Answers in Genesis can help with the arithmetic) Unless, however, we look at Genesis chapter 2, where the single male Yahweh Elohim/Kurios Theos/Lord God created the single male Homo sapiens, on the single day of his creation, from mud, BEFORE he created the dingoes and the dinosaurs. If humans and dinosaurs occupied the planet at the same time, and a single human male was created FIRST, we have a lot of explaining to do about when and what "In the Beginning" is all about.
Quick notes as I have time.
Thank you to those who have contributed directly to the topic in hand. Please give me/us more.
And thank you to whoever deleted the stuff that wasn't on topic. Please give me/us less.
P.S. I quite deliberately know very little about science - helps keep the focus firmly on biblical topics only.
Lee wrote: "Stuart, there are some here who equate following Jesus with intolerance. Please know that most of us disagree. We're enjoying the puzzle."
Glad you're enjoying the puzzle.
Glad you're enjoying the puzzle.
Hi Stuart,I find it interesting; you and Thiering seem to have a much higher regard for Scripture and its depth of organization than most Bible-thumpers, who in all honesty tend to see it's arrangement as happenstance - God's very word, but happenstance.
That said, I honestly don't see much value in what I have seen of Thiering's work. I grabbed her book from the library and I have read a goodly chunk of it this afternoon. While she does an excellent job explaining the lay of the Qumran community and describing their practices, I found that her arguments about the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls merely made her assertions thinkable - they hardly rendered them plausible. And she really does seem to leap (and I mean in the logical sense) right into a long narrative mixture of history, speculation and wild fancy. She suggests, but never proves (in the goodly chunk I have read) that the Qumran society had anything to do with Christianity, John the Baptist, Jesus etc. Most scholars seem to conclude, based on carbon dating among other things, that the texts are far older. I found her arguments regarding the date of the scrolls to do little more than raise questions; they did not, in my opinion, do anything like prove that they were written at Jesus' time - much less written about Jesus. Her attempts to re-date them, again, only make the theory possible in my mind; they do nothing for it.
I can honestly say that after looking at the book I can imagine that Jesus lived among the Essenes and that all the events of the New Testament are coded texts meant to conceal the political meanderings of a bunch of deluded Palestinians. But there is nothing in the book that can make me conclude that. It is missing about a thousand 'ergos.'
When it comes down to it, unfortunately, for a lay person like myself there comes a time when you must trust the experts. When my car breaks down, if 99 to 1 mechanics tell me my muffler needs to be changed, I must offer my apologies to the one mechanic who says its my rear view mirror.
That is not to say that I am incapable of taking a minority position - on the contrary, even among Christians I am quite alone in modernity as a philosophical Idealist (I find Schopenhauer's 'On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason' to be far more convincing than GE Moore's 'this is a hand' argument). But if I am going to go against the experts for the sake of a single expert, it must be because the strength of their argumentation. This is one of the reasons I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I have no problem taking the minority scientific position, but when I find their argumentation to be lacking, or rooted only in Biblical teachings rather than science, I must leave it to the experts (especially when, as we've said, the Genesis account was not written necessarily to be a scientific account of the physical origins of the universe).
When Thiering seems to be utterly alone among scholars in her belief I cannot, without becoming her equal, trust her. This is especially the case since I found her method of argumentation so underwhelming, and underwhelming at the most crucial points:
- That there is any real connection between the persons of Qumran and Jesus/John the Baptist
- That any of the New Testament documents were in fact written with all this multi-layered coding.
To me it was a bit like reading the Silmarillion sans Tolkien's talent. And the line between what was clearly her speculation or hypothesizing was completely blurred, making it very difficult to say, without consulting Josephus and the Scrolls every step of the way, whether or not she was dictating history, exegeting a text, talking about real persons from Qumran, implanting persons from the New Testament where they have no business or just making it all up.
All that said, I have often myself argued somewhat along the very same lines about how literally certain texts are meant to be taken etc (for instance, since all seem to agree that Adam's predicted death was spiritual, why not the snake, the man and woman, the apple and the trees also?). But I think her thesis goes far beyond the evidence - again, based on what I am presently capable of examining in her writing.
And I do find what you have to say on the Elohim to be very interesting. One thing that stuck out in my mind when I read John Locke's philosophy was his suggestion that, since we have no innate ideas, the idea of 'God' cannot come to us full and complete from without. In order for there to be a revelation or any understanding of God, it would have to be in terms rooted in our experience (that is how I understood him at least).
In order for any knowledge of God to come to man, it would have to come to him in the terms he knows and recognizes. If God said to Noah, build an 'Ark' and he had never heard of such a thing, he would be quite at a loss to know his duty. So also as God reveals himself to man, if they did not already have the 'elohim' and other conceptions of deity, I wonder how they could ever actually attain the idea of God. To my mind, then, the theory that the Christian God originated as just another 'sky god' neither perturbs me nor surprises me, although I am far from certain that this is the case.
I apologize both for the length of this, and for the fact that my time restraints force me to limit my involvement here. I generally avoid discussions to be honest, because they all too often seem to turn into fin-flaring contests. I am guessing you were drawn to this group because of the topic started about your book where we did anything but actually discuss your book. Seeing that you were interested in discussion, I felt that it would be good if we actually attempted to interact with your ideas, even if I am not able to do much more at the present. I think we collectively owe you an apology, although I don't think all would agree with me.
In one of your earlier posts, you expressed that a certain behavior among Christians is at least partly to blame for your own departure from the faith. I fully understand that; it is my own story to some degree. There are many who would say that I too have departed from the faith - although I would like to disagree. I find that your position on the nature of the Bible says to me that it was not so much the Bible that drove you away, but the people who lay claim to it. Many atheists are content to simply treat the work with disdain as if it was written by baboons. Whether you agree with them or think they were good people or not, you at least seem to treat them with respect - I mean, in the sense that you seem to see them as intelligent human beings rather than unkempt, daydreaming wild-men.
As far as the Bible goes... For myself, I say it of the Old and New Testaments alike - the letter kills. I try to understand the Bible through the lens of Jesus Christ. I look at him first, and to the God he represents to us, and then I understand not only the Bible, but every work of spiritual literature through that lens. And when I speak of him, I am not necessarily talking about the so-called 'historical Jesus' - as an Idealist this means nothing more than 'Jesus as a ding-an-sich or thing-in-itself' and I don't think it is a valid conception.
I wrote a blog post some time ago that might interest you, if you are interested in understanding my perspective a little further:
https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
I would be very interested to see what others think about these things too, as, again, I am very limited in what I can contribute at the moment.
I think it would be a good reminder to us all to recall that we were not always believers, nor were we always unbelievers. Just because we may think our current position to be the truth according to the happenstance of time, it doesn't give us any superiority over the others, who either hold a position we once held or hold a position we might some day come to believe - or who at the very least hold a position at some time of their lives that is no better than the worst we have held.
Why should a Christian belittle the ideas of a non-Christian, when he once held those same ideas? Where is the source of such boasting? And, of course, I apologize for suggesting such a criticism, because I myself am the worst offender here - if not in public, within my own head, where I say everything I think even if I never put it on paper or on the internet.
Hey Jake
Glad you didn't swallow Auntie Babs hook, line and pesher. My thoughts indeed when I was wondering when she was going to show mw how I too could end up where she did.
Quick notes on way out to work.
Thiering's basic premise of layers of allegory certainly worth bearing in mind and extending to OT - same culture after all. Cryptic word use also worth looking for.
Timing of Creation 1, c. 4000 BCE aligns with sudden/ish rise of Sumerian civilisation - thought by some to have been brought/done so by God - God for Sumerians being plurality of Annunaki/Shaddai. Abraham and family from Ur. Sumerian Empire/s sweep across Jordan region.
Sumerian concept of our planet was of a canopy with water on the outside - several biblical references to this concept - and with windows. Need to remember windows.
Symbolically - picture dark water of biblical universe representing pre-Sumerian ignorance. Light represents civilising illumination of An/El/Yah - symbolism has been adapted - and the firmament opened up within the dark watery ignorance of the savage non-civilisations surrounding the enlightened Sumerians.
Think of a Garden as a Library.
More later.
Cheers
Glad you didn't swallow Auntie Babs hook, line and pesher. My thoughts indeed when I was wondering when she was going to show mw how I too could end up where she did.
Quick notes on way out to work.
Thiering's basic premise of layers of allegory certainly worth bearing in mind and extending to OT - same culture after all. Cryptic word use also worth looking for.
Timing of Creation 1, c. 4000 BCE aligns with sudden/ish rise of Sumerian civilisation - thought by some to have been brought/done so by God - God for Sumerians being plurality of Annunaki/Shaddai. Abraham and family from Ur. Sumerian Empire/s sweep across Jordan region.
Sumerian concept of our planet was of a canopy with water on the outside - several biblical references to this concept - and with windows. Need to remember windows.
Symbolically - picture dark water of biblical universe representing pre-Sumerian ignorance. Light represents civilising illumination of An/El/Yah - symbolism has been adapted - and the firmament opened up within the dark watery ignorance of the savage non-civilisations surrounding the enlightened Sumerians.
Think of a Garden as a Library.
More later.
Cheers
There are many parallels between ancient Sumerian religion and the writings of Moses, as there are also interesting connections with the ancient Egyptian myths.Origin stories all over the world in folklore have so many things in common. the deluge story is everywhere and both middle eastern and asian development point to the same time frame of about 5-6 thousand years.
There are little tidbits like the Egyptians calling themselves the "land of Ham" in their hyroglyphs for example that point to a reality in the ancient writings. Recently scholars have found an ancient egyptian record that bears a stunning resemblance to the biblical plagues. What if scripture actually meant what it said?
It is interesting you include Anu in your discussion. I have no doubt the concept of the sky God that is spread throughout the globe has an origin. The question is was it made up by the Sumerians? or did the Sumerians inherit some concepts from Noah?
The Sumerian writings and the Egyptian writings date approximately the same period. Ham went south, Shem went east. A bit later people migrated to ancient Indian and similar stories appear again.
Your line of reasoning assumes the stories were transmitted via Abraham who carried with him the concepts of Sumerian priests. It's interesting, and entirely possible, however the Egyptians had very similar creation and deluge concepts in the old kingdom prior to the Abrahamic migration.
This suggests to me that the origin of the creation/flood stories predate the Sumerian priests.
Interestingly the Egyptians also had a cosmic egg concept which is not in the Sumerian culture but shows up in ancient India. This again indicates to me an origin that predates Sumerian priests.
Earliest Sumerian Creation and Flood text - Eridu Genesis c.1600 BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian...
Earliest Hebrew Creation and Flood texts - Dead Sea Scrolls c.200 BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea...
Date of biblical flood - 2348 BCE
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-ti...
What other people were doing at that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_mill...
And not a chisel mark or a hieroglyph to mention the interruption of their Indian, Egyptian, Chinese, Mesopotamian and many more, cultures by an Ararat-covering biblical flood.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/j... Quote from site:
"The Hebrews adopted the alphabetic script together with other cultural values from the Canaanites in the 12th or 11th century B.C.E. They followed the current Phoenician script until the ninth century, when they began to develop their own national script."
That the Israelites were indigenous Canaanites, and not a unique, earlier, monotheistic ethnicity who brought Yahweh with them, is largely the consensus view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_...
First mention of "Israel" c. 1209 BCE
http://www.ucg.org/science/bible-and-...
First possible mention of Yahweh as a place or a deity - c. 1400 BCE
http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/...
First religious texts concerning Yahweh as an established deity - c. 200 BCE at the very earliest - Dead Sea Scrolls.
First religious texts - c. 2500 BCE - Pyramid Texts
http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/
The formalised concept of God - or as I prefer Divinity - was established thousands of years before the Israelite people, the Hebrew language, or the deity Yahweh were established.
Divinity means - and has meant - vastly different things to vastly different cultures. If any culture makes the claim that their particular concept of the Divine is "God" exclusively. It's incumbent upon that culture to provide the independently verifiable evidence. Evidence that can be subjected to emotionless, indifferent scrutiny.
By the time the Jewish priests wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls to promote the theology of their comparatively new deity, Yahweh, they were not, I suggest, writing about a literal creation or a literal flood. I suspect they were using well-known mythology as historical allegory for political events in their own time - and in previous layers of time. Seems to me to be very clever what they've done - if that's what they've done.
Nor were they, I suggest, claiming that Yahweh was God with a capital G. That claim would need to wait several more centuries.
Abraham may represent several historical characters, from several historical periods. In none of those periods did Abraham bring the single male deity, Yahweh - I suggest.
Noah, in the newer Hebrew text (who may originally have represented historical women by the way) would have inherited concepts from the far older Sumerian (and other) texts. All the written texts, we may understand, were developed from older traditions. The Hebrew texts are a composite from a number of older traditions.
More on Floods later - perhaps.
I'll jot a few more Creation notes early in the morning (if I don't sleep in).
Thank you for participating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian...
Earliest Hebrew Creation and Flood texts - Dead Sea Scrolls c.200 BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea...
Date of biblical flood - 2348 BCE
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-ti...
What other people were doing at that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_mill...
And not a chisel mark or a hieroglyph to mention the interruption of their Indian, Egyptian, Chinese, Mesopotamian and many more, cultures by an Ararat-covering biblical flood.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/j... Quote from site:
"The Hebrews adopted the alphabetic script together with other cultural values from the Canaanites in the 12th or 11th century B.C.E. They followed the current Phoenician script until the ninth century, when they began to develop their own national script."
That the Israelites were indigenous Canaanites, and not a unique, earlier, monotheistic ethnicity who brought Yahweh with them, is largely the consensus view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_...
First mention of "Israel" c. 1209 BCE
http://www.ucg.org/science/bible-and-...
First possible mention of Yahweh as a place or a deity - c. 1400 BCE
http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/...
First religious texts concerning Yahweh as an established deity - c. 200 BCE at the very earliest - Dead Sea Scrolls.
First religious texts - c. 2500 BCE - Pyramid Texts
http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/
The formalised concept of God - or as I prefer Divinity - was established thousands of years before the Israelite people, the Hebrew language, or the deity Yahweh were established.
Divinity means - and has meant - vastly different things to vastly different cultures. If any culture makes the claim that their particular concept of the Divine is "God" exclusively. It's incumbent upon that culture to provide the independently verifiable evidence. Evidence that can be subjected to emotionless, indifferent scrutiny.
By the time the Jewish priests wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls to promote the theology of their comparatively new deity, Yahweh, they were not, I suggest, writing about a literal creation or a literal flood. I suspect they were using well-known mythology as historical allegory for political events in their own time - and in previous layers of time. Seems to me to be very clever what they've done - if that's what they've done.
Nor were they, I suggest, claiming that Yahweh was God with a capital G. That claim would need to wait several more centuries.
Abraham may represent several historical characters, from several historical periods. In none of those periods did Abraham bring the single male deity, Yahweh - I suggest.
Noah, in the newer Hebrew text (who may originally have represented historical women by the way) would have inherited concepts from the far older Sumerian (and other) texts. All the written texts, we may understand, were developed from older traditions. The Hebrew texts are a composite from a number of older traditions.
More on Floods later - perhaps.
I'll jot a few more Creation notes early in the morning (if I don't sleep in).
Thank you for participating.
And not a chisel mark or a hieroglyph to mention the interruption of their Indian, Egyptian, Chinese, Mesopotamian and many more, cultures by an Ararat-covering biblical floodI'm wondering if you missed the note in the wikipedia page you reference that the flood story has many similarities to the epic of Gilgamesh, also it has similarities to the Matsya legend in vedic writings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsya
and the mesoamerican people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamer...
and the african people
http://www.jalumi.com/class/csu/Yorub...
and of course the egyptians
http://www.creationicc.org/abstract.p...
First possible mention of Yahweh as a place or a deity - c. 1400 BCE
http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/...
this is a fantastic article, thanks. It fits the story quite well. You will notice the first chapter of Genesis doesn't use the name YHWH. Moses introduced the name as the covenant name for Israel. Hence the conjoining of YWHW Elohiym to express that God had manifest himself to Israel.
So I wouldn't expect any mention prior to this time, in just the same manner as there is no mention of Jesus Christ prior to his manifestation.
The writer mentions that the Egyptians didn't want to worship YHWH. I'm not surprised. After the way the Israelites left they would have carried a great deal of resentment toward the God of Israel.
You mention the dead sea scrolls. One thing I find most fascinating about the dead sea scrolls is that whilst they are written in hebrew the name YHWH is written in Paleo-Hebrew which is nearly identical to the ancient pheonician script circa 1200 BC. It seems to indicate the concept of YHWH harkens to proto-canaanite days, as the hieroglyphs you mentioned would suggest.
By the time the Jewish priests wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls to promote the theology of their comparatively new deity, Yahweh
ah you lost me there, you put forward an article that cites evidence YHWH was known to the Egyptians in 1400BC and then suggest the Jewish Priests wrote the dead sea scrolls in 200 BC to promote a new YHWH God?
My point prior about the exodus is a topic of debate around this scroll I think it demostrates there is more to Hebrew history than fantasy. Why is it that no-one questions the hieroglyphs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_P...
This article about the parallels between egyptian and hebrew history is fascinating.
http://creation.com/egyptian-history-...
Jake wrote: "Elohim, from what I understand is plural - a class and not a proper name. But perhaps, as the rest of the elohim were abandoned or rejected or edited away, the class came to possess one member, and so that surviving member, being alone in the class, BECAME the class - and then God would be coterminous with Elohim."If you have an interest in philosophy, I highly suggest you read Friedrich Schelling's Philosophy of Mythology on this question. He makes a good case that polytheism was the aberration, not monotheism. He makes this point specifically in his discussion regarding Judaism. Scholars don't know everything. The majority of their points are speculative conjecture. Trusting their views is not like trusting evidence that is empirically solid. It really doesn't matter how many scholars give assent to an opinion. Truth isn't a democracy in my experience.
Date of appearance of first biblical Homo sapiens, created by the deity Yahweh, from mud and a rib - 4004 BCE
What was happening in the non-biblical world in the 5th Millennium BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_mill...
Date of the 4.5 kilometre deep biblical flood - 2348 BCE
What was happening in the non-biblical world in the 3rd Millennium BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_mill...
Biblical origins of humanity - in 2348 BCE, 8 humans on entire planet, speaking 1 language and building an altar to Yahweh. Shem and his wife repopulated the totally depopulated China. Japheth repopulated Europe, and Ham reversed the Out of Africa Theory by repopulating Africa.
There was no global flood - by the biblical Yahweh during the 5th Egyptian Dynasty - or by any other pre-Yahweh God concept at any other time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-n...
http://www.simpletoremember.com/artic... Quote from site - and the biblical writings are their ethnic culture:
"In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archaeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history."
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/t... Quote from Christian site
"The Bible is not a scientific textbook, nor was it ever intended to be read in this way."
I thoroughly agree with the last statement. If you declare events and descriptions in the biblical writings to be entirely factual - the wheels very quickly fall off your chariot. If you declare the biblical writings to be the Bronze Age mythology of Middle East goat herders - you never had wheels on your chariot to start with.
So where do we go?
Do we plant our flag somewhere along the continuum of impossible biblical literalism: and here we stand until all the young people have left and no one is there on the pews, because our intransigent, unhistorical, unscientific literalism has obliged them to exercise their intellectual honesty and become atheists?
Do we put belief and confirmation bias to one side and re-examine the texts, and see what we might find without the blinkers and psychological blackmail of dogma, by approaching the texts in cold, hard, independent, evidence-examining daylight?
What was happening in the non-biblical world in the 5th Millennium BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5th_mill...
Date of the 4.5 kilometre deep biblical flood - 2348 BCE
What was happening in the non-biblical world in the 3rd Millennium BCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_mill...
Biblical origins of humanity - in 2348 BCE, 8 humans on entire planet, speaking 1 language and building an altar to Yahweh. Shem and his wife repopulated the totally depopulated China. Japheth repopulated Europe, and Ham reversed the Out of Africa Theory by repopulating Africa.
There was no global flood - by the biblical Yahweh during the 5th Egyptian Dynasty - or by any other pre-Yahweh God concept at any other time.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-n...
http://www.simpletoremember.com/artic... Quote from site - and the biblical writings are their ethnic culture:
"In summary, the Bible is not a book of history, yet it contains history and culture, which is more or less borne out by archaeology. It’s a book of teachings, and it’s the ideal way to learn the patterns of history."
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/t... Quote from Christian site
"The Bible is not a scientific textbook, nor was it ever intended to be read in this way."
I thoroughly agree with the last statement. If you declare events and descriptions in the biblical writings to be entirely factual - the wheels very quickly fall off your chariot. If you declare the biblical writings to be the Bronze Age mythology of Middle East goat herders - you never had wheels on your chariot to start with.
So where do we go?
Do we plant our flag somewhere along the continuum of impossible biblical literalism: and here we stand until all the young people have left and no one is there on the pews, because our intransigent, unhistorical, unscientific literalism has obliged them to exercise their intellectual honesty and become atheists?
Do we put belief and confirmation bias to one side and re-examine the texts, and see what we might find without the blinkers and psychological blackmail of dogma, by approaching the texts in cold, hard, independent, evidence-examining daylight?
Back to Creation allegory
We have a biblical universe filled with water in about 4000 BCE.
We have the beginning of the Sumerian culture in about 4000 BCE.
We have Divinity as the Sumerian An - we do not have Israelites, the Hebrew language or Divinity as Yahweh.
The water may represent humanity prior to advent of Sumerian civilisation.
Light may represent the enlightenment brought my Divinity.
The Firmament of air opened up in the Water may represent the Sumerian civilisation surrounded by primitive Waters. (The biblical firmament was quite happily called Heaven in the KJV - interesting to consider why that has now been deliberately changed in newer versions).
The Earth may represent a Sumerian temple.
A Garden may represent a library within the temple.
Jake has picked up where I'm going with this.
Feedback from others on the topic of allegory and metaphor in Gen 1 most welcome (we'll come to Gen 2 and flood later).
I only strayed into discussion with Joshua for historical perspective - thank you Joshua.
Firm focus on Gen 1 , if you will, please.
We have a biblical universe filled with water in about 4000 BCE.
We have the beginning of the Sumerian culture in about 4000 BCE.
We have Divinity as the Sumerian An - we do not have Israelites, the Hebrew language or Divinity as Yahweh.
The water may represent humanity prior to advent of Sumerian civilisation.
Light may represent the enlightenment brought my Divinity.
The Firmament of air opened up in the Water may represent the Sumerian civilisation surrounded by primitive Waters. (The biblical firmament was quite happily called Heaven in the KJV - interesting to consider why that has now been deliberately changed in newer versions).
The Earth may represent a Sumerian temple.
A Garden may represent a library within the temple.
Jake has picked up where I'm going with this.
Feedback from others on the topic of allegory and metaphor in Gen 1 most welcome (we'll come to Gen 2 and flood later).
I only strayed into discussion with Joshua for historical perspective - thank you Joshua.
Firm focus on Gen 1 , if you will, please.
Erick wrote: "Jake wrote: "Elohim, from what I understand is plural - a class and not a proper name. But perhaps, as the rest of the elohim were abandoned or rejected or edited away, the class came to possess on..."
Haven't read this - sounds interesting.
Is it along the lines of what we have seen in Christian history, where a single group will split into, well, countless Christianities?
I digress ..!!
Another thread please Erick
Haven't read this - sounds interesting.
Is it along the lines of what we have seen in Christian history, where a single group will split into, well, countless Christianities?
I digress ..!!
Another thread please Erick
Stuart wrote: "Is it along the lines of what we have seen in Christian history, where a single group will split into, well, countless Christianities?"No.
Stuart wrote: "Another thread please Erick "
No intention of causing whatever it is you are attempting here to go off track. Just a quick comment, which is not altogether unrelated.
Erick wrote: "Stuart wrote: "Is it along the lines of what we have seen in Christian history, where a single group will split into, well, countless Christianities?"
No.
Stuart wrote: "Another thread please Eri..."
I digressed ....
Another specific thread would be good!
No.
Stuart wrote: "Another thread please Eri..."
I digressed ....
Another specific thread would be good!
Stuart, this is not really a conversation, is it.
Joshua wrote: "Stuart,
this is not really a conversation, is it."
Jake and I seem to converse very well on the subject matter in hand.
Jake wrote:
"Hi Stuart,
I find it interesting; you and Thiering seem to have a much higher regard for Scripture and its depth of organization than most Bible-thumpers, who in all honesty tend to see it's arrangement as happenstance - God's very word, but happenstance."
Joshua wrote:
"The Sumerian writings and the Egyptian writings date approximately the same period. Ham went south, Shem went east. A bit later people migrated to ancient Indian and similar stories appear again."
Please take a very careful look at this Joshua,
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Scr...
And then find an Indian scholar and tell him he's descended from a character in Hebrew mythology, found only in Hebrew documents from no earlier than 200 BCE, with not a scintilla of corroborating evidence, and his/her culture was washed away under 4.5 kilometres of biblical water in 2348 BCE because his/her ancestors did not worship the Jewish deity Yahweh no one was going to hear about for the next 1,000 years.
You could try the same approach with Chinese scholars, or Korean scholars: because the biblical flood arrived 15 years after their own Son of God came down from Heaven, under very similar circumstance to those of Jesus over 2,000 years later.
This topic addresses biblical analogy, metaphor and allegory in Genesis 1. So far, from memory, Jake is the only one to contribute to the topic in hand.
If, in the interest of polemics and apologetics, you deny the possibility of analogy, metaphor and allegory in Gen 1, it seems to me you will need to validate the literal existence of our planet as a dome within a water-filled universe - or some other non-allegorical explanation - with dates and how you obtained them, and validate the existence, not of God per se, but of Elohim/Theos from Gen 1. Or, perhaps they may be allegories that prove the literal understanding, or something else altogether ...?
I'll leave it up to you how you tackle the direct question of analogy, metaphor and allegory in Gen 1.
I acknowledge I'm being a bit tough on you, but you know, heat and kitchens and all those other analogies that fit here in the field of polemics (http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...)
Thanks Joshua.
this is not really a conversation, is it."
Jake and I seem to converse very well on the subject matter in hand.
Jake wrote:
"Hi Stuart,
I find it interesting; you and Thiering seem to have a much higher regard for Scripture and its depth of organization than most Bible-thumpers, who in all honesty tend to see it's arrangement as happenstance - God's very word, but happenstance."
Joshua wrote:
"The Sumerian writings and the Egyptian writings date approximately the same period. Ham went south, Shem went east. A bit later people migrated to ancient Indian and similar stories appear again."
Please take a very careful look at this Joshua,
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Hindu_Scr...
And then find an Indian scholar and tell him he's descended from a character in Hebrew mythology, found only in Hebrew documents from no earlier than 200 BCE, with not a scintilla of corroborating evidence, and his/her culture was washed away under 4.5 kilometres of biblical water in 2348 BCE because his/her ancestors did not worship the Jewish deity Yahweh no one was going to hear about for the next 1,000 years.
You could try the same approach with Chinese scholars, or Korean scholars: because the biblical flood arrived 15 years after their own Son of God came down from Heaven, under very similar circumstance to those of Jesus over 2,000 years later.
This topic addresses biblical analogy, metaphor and allegory in Genesis 1. So far, from memory, Jake is the only one to contribute to the topic in hand.
If, in the interest of polemics and apologetics, you deny the possibility of analogy, metaphor and allegory in Gen 1, it seems to me you will need to validate the literal existence of our planet as a dome within a water-filled universe - or some other non-allegorical explanation - with dates and how you obtained them, and validate the existence, not of God per se, but of Elohim/Theos from Gen 1. Or, perhaps they may be allegories that prove the literal understanding, or something else altogether ...?
I'll leave it up to you how you tackle the direct question of analogy, metaphor and allegory in Gen 1.
I acknowledge I'm being a bit tough on you, but you know, heat and kitchens and all those other analogies that fit here in the field of polemics (http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...)
Thanks Joshua.
There are snakes everywhere, but especially in libraries, I think.
Jake wrote: "There are snakes everywhere, but especially in libraries, I think."
This one could not only talk, he was more naked than any other level of human created by Yahweh Elohim.
This one could not only talk, he was more naked than any other level of human created by Yahweh Elohim.
There are snakes everywhere, but especially in libraries, I think.haha
Stuart you cannot build a discussion without first laying a foundation. You begin with the assumption that the biblical narrative was a construct of Jewish Priests in 200 AD. Without first proving that point the remainder of the discussion is purely speculation.
I acknowledge I'm being a bit tough on you, but you know, heat and kitchens and all those other analogies that fit here in the field of polemics
oh please. you aren't tough you are obtuse. You can't ask us to take off the blinkers when you have your own set of custom Barbara Theiring specials and you won't get off the starting blocks with people here unless you build a sound case. I don't think anyone here believes Wikipedia is absolute truth. In case you are unaware Wikipedia, though very helpful is built on popular concensus.
So lets talk about why Egypt is called the "land of Ham" in their own hieroglyphs. Does this perhaps present a case against the "out of Africa" theory.
Joshua wrote: "So lets talk about why Egypt is called the "land of Ham" in their own hieroglyphs. Does this perhaps present a case against the "out of Africa" theory."
Way, way off topic.
Of course I'm abstruse (obtuse is quite a pejorative term - I hope you just didn't know the meaning of the word you chose) the biblical writings are abstruse.
Judging by your "ha ha" you've also taken the talking naked snakes in libraries at face value. If you haven't picked up the analogy, metaphor and allegory by now - you may be better spending some time with a dictionary, books on genuine history (Wikipedia is a great place to start!!)and then go and chat to some African, Indian and Chinese university students about their biblical origins (geologists, historians and biologists would be good: especially with the mud and rib business) - you will need to bring something other than your Bible with you.
This topic is analogy, metaphor and allegory - or the absence thereof - in Genesis 1.
One final time, Joshua, this topic is analogy, metaphor and allegory in Gen 1.
Way, way off topic.
Of course I'm abstruse (obtuse is quite a pejorative term - I hope you just didn't know the meaning of the word you chose) the biblical writings are abstruse.
Judging by your "ha ha" you've also taken the talking naked snakes in libraries at face value. If you haven't picked up the analogy, metaphor and allegory by now - you may be better spending some time with a dictionary, books on genuine history (Wikipedia is a great place to start!!)and then go and chat to some African, Indian and Chinese university students about their biblical origins (geologists, historians and biologists would be good: especially with the mud and rib business) - you will need to bring something other than your Bible with you.
This topic is analogy, metaphor and allegory - or the absence thereof - in Genesis 1.
One final time, Joshua, this topic is analogy, metaphor and allegory in Gen 1.
One final time? I do know what obtuse means. You seem quite unwilling to discuss the foundation of your position and appear to be perhaps deliberately obtuse.
You starts with the premise that Genesis is myth but there are many "facts" that would suggest otherwise.
Interesting to me...the "facts" that Joshua uses to suggest that Genesis is true are the very "facts" Stuart uses to suggest it is myth
exactly. I'm saying where there is smoke there is fire. Stuart seems to think where there is smoke a Jewish priest is standing in the wings with a smoke machine
Lee wrote: "Interesting to me...the "facts" that Joshua uses to suggest that Genesis is true are the very "facts" Stuart uses to suggest it is myth"
I'll summarise a few myth-facts we sniffed at so far.
Beginning:
Literal - beginning of everything, or some things, or no one can agree because of the smoke machine. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - beginning of Sumerian civilisation.
Evidence - a straw man here to be tested.
Date:
Literal - 4000-10000 BCE. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - 4000, 3500, 3000, 2500, 2000, 1500, 1000, 500 BCE. Evidence - as above.
Water:
Literal - biblical universe is made of water. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - uncivilised societies. Evidence - as above.
Light:
Literal - Elohim/Jesus/insert your Divinity concept here. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - Wisdom of (insert your Divinity concept here). Evidence - as above.
Firmament:
Literal - a dome inside the biblical water. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - the Sumerian and later civilisations. Evidence - as above.
Heaven:
Literal - a name for the dome we live in. Extra biblical evidence - too smoky - and, since telescopes and space travel, a literal Heaven seems to have disappeared off into the realms of a science-fiction parallel universe or the like.
Allegorical - a name for the biblical dome. Evidence - the biblical writings.
Earth:
Literal - our planet. Extra-biblical evidence - check outside.
Allegorical - Sumerian temple or series of temples, as in "The Church". Evidence - as above.
Garden:
Literal - garden. Extra biblical evidence - check outside.
Allegorical - temple library. Evidence - as above.
Grass:
Literal - grass. Extra-biblical evidence - check outside.
Allegorical - simple forms of knowledge. Evidence - as above.
Trees:
Literal - trees. Extra-biblical evidence - check outside.
Allegorical - more complex forms of knowledge than grass. Evidence - as above.
Sun, Moon, Stars
Literal - sun, moon, stars. Extra-biblical evidence - check outside to see if they're still on the ceiling of the dome, ready to fall like figs.
Allegorical - High Priest, day; High Priest, night; lesser religious officials. Evidence - as above, with acknowledgement to Thiering for the idea in the first place.
Given the zeros above, those of us with a sense of adventure set off in search of possible explanations.
I'll summarise a few myth-facts we sniffed at so far.
Beginning:
Literal - beginning of everything, or some things, or no one can agree because of the smoke machine. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - beginning of Sumerian civilisation.
Evidence - a straw man here to be tested.
Date:
Literal - 4000-10000 BCE. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - 4000, 3500, 3000, 2500, 2000, 1500, 1000, 500 BCE. Evidence - as above.
Water:
Literal - biblical universe is made of water. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - uncivilised societies. Evidence - as above.
Light:
Literal - Elohim/Jesus/insert your Divinity concept here. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - Wisdom of (insert your Divinity concept here). Evidence - as above.
Firmament:
Literal - a dome inside the biblical water. Extra-biblical evidence - zero.
Allegorical - the Sumerian and later civilisations. Evidence - as above.
Heaven:
Literal - a name for the dome we live in. Extra biblical evidence - too smoky - and, since telescopes and space travel, a literal Heaven seems to have disappeared off into the realms of a science-fiction parallel universe or the like.
Allegorical - a name for the biblical dome. Evidence - the biblical writings.
Earth:
Literal - our planet. Extra-biblical evidence - check outside.
Allegorical - Sumerian temple or series of temples, as in "The Church". Evidence - as above.
Garden:
Literal - garden. Extra biblical evidence - check outside.
Allegorical - temple library. Evidence - as above.
Grass:
Literal - grass. Extra-biblical evidence - check outside.
Allegorical - simple forms of knowledge. Evidence - as above.
Trees:
Literal - trees. Extra-biblical evidence - check outside.
Allegorical - more complex forms of knowledge than grass. Evidence - as above.
Sun, Moon, Stars
Literal - sun, moon, stars. Extra-biblical evidence - check outside to see if they're still on the ceiling of the dome, ready to fall like figs.
Allegorical - High Priest, day; High Priest, night; lesser religious officials. Evidence - as above, with acknowledgement to Thiering for the idea in the first place.
Given the zeros above, those of us with a sense of adventure set off in search of possible explanations.
I'm all for adventuring - read CREATION STRIKES BACK for a scientific interpretation of Genesis.
Robert wrote: "I'm all for adventuring - read CREATION STRIKES BACK for a scientific interpretation of Genesis."
"Interpretation" - now there's a word worth pondering for a while - especially when you're pondering how you will address the topic of (let me put CAPS LOCK ON) ANALOGY, METAPHOR AND ALLEGORY in Genesis 1.
I know, I'll deflect attention away because I've nothing at all to contribute to that topic, and I'll take the spotlight off Jesus because it's getting just TOO awkward, and I'll try to concentrate the spotlight onto the same flogged near to death horse of EvC. Because I've written a book, which, by its very title suggests it's not going to give a shred of extra-biblical evidence to back up the veracity of biblical mythology/science: it looks like it's going to be yet another critique of science.
I quite deliberately don't do science, as I've said, for this very reason. Believers take the spotlight off Jesus. Believers wrench the spotlight off Jesus and onto Darwin, Stalin and anything and anyone else other than the lack of evidence for Yahweh, Jesus or the Holy Ghost even existing, let alone creating anything outside the minds of believers. This is an apologetics forum - Jesus wants you to talk about him. I want to talk about Jesus.
If you want to talk about science, take your book and have it peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal ... by scientists ... they would welcome it as true science, wouldn't they, Robert. You could earn yourself a PhD, and creationists just love to trot out people with PhDs.
If you want to talk about Jesus, I'm just your man, Robert. I'm a theologist.
Joshua has been playing the same sort of tricks. Not a peep from him on the topic in hand, but deflection and distraction away onto 8 Homo sapiens on the planet in 2348 BCE, and Africa and India repopulated by characters from Hebrew mythology, and Asian languages springing up simultaneously because he read a story in a Jewish booklet from 200 BCE. And not a shred of corroborating evidence from the learned people in the communities he claims have a biblical origin ... from the booklet from 200 BCE.
However, I am a gentleman of open mind, and if you can give me a paragraph from your book (I see you're a biologist) that gives me evidence that I can take away and verify for myself that Jesus (or any other deity or god-man) created the planet's first Homo sapiens from mud and a rib in 4004 BCE (or any other date)- and maybe let me know if Adam was created before or after the dinosaurs, because there seems to be some sort of confusion/contradiction between what I see as the first creation myth and the second, re-creation myth - I will buy a full copy. But wait, I will go one better: I you can provide independently verifiable evidence for the existence of so much as one character from the booklet of Genesis, I will buy another copy for my mother. She too believes the universe and everything in it was created by Jesus - just don't press her for details and evidence. I'm going out on a bit of a limb for you here Robert, because I haven't actually checked for about the last 20 years. I'm only going on what I read in a book by a couple of rabbis, who rather sheepishly referred to some of the biblical truths in Genesis as "poetic evocations".
Not only that - seeing we're in the market of self-promotion right here - if you can provide independently verifiable evidence for just one event in human history that is portrayed in the entire booklet of Genesis, I will give you a copy of Revelation 1 of my own stuff.
And as an added bonus, if you actually contribute to the topic in hand (Jesus wants you to talk about him and not try to sell your book to an atheist) I will give you, free of charge and all obligation, a copy of Rev 2.
Just a reminder for you and Joshua, the topic here is (caps lock again) ANALOGY, METAPHOR AND ALLEGORY IN GENESIS CHAPTER 1.
Thank you Robert, I'm going to take my lightweight gasbaggery and have some breakfast.
Greetings from Australia.
"Interpretation" - now there's a word worth pondering for a while - especially when you're pondering how you will address the topic of (let me put CAPS LOCK ON) ANALOGY, METAPHOR AND ALLEGORY in Genesis 1.
I know, I'll deflect attention away because I've nothing at all to contribute to that topic, and I'll take the spotlight off Jesus because it's getting just TOO awkward, and I'll try to concentrate the spotlight onto the same flogged near to death horse of EvC. Because I've written a book, which, by its very title suggests it's not going to give a shred of extra-biblical evidence to back up the veracity of biblical mythology/science: it looks like it's going to be yet another critique of science.
I quite deliberately don't do science, as I've said, for this very reason. Believers take the spotlight off Jesus. Believers wrench the spotlight off Jesus and onto Darwin, Stalin and anything and anyone else other than the lack of evidence for Yahweh, Jesus or the Holy Ghost even existing, let alone creating anything outside the minds of believers. This is an apologetics forum - Jesus wants you to talk about him. I want to talk about Jesus.
If you want to talk about science, take your book and have it peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal ... by scientists ... they would welcome it as true science, wouldn't they, Robert. You could earn yourself a PhD, and creationists just love to trot out people with PhDs.
If you want to talk about Jesus, I'm just your man, Robert. I'm a theologist.
Joshua has been playing the same sort of tricks. Not a peep from him on the topic in hand, but deflection and distraction away onto 8 Homo sapiens on the planet in 2348 BCE, and Africa and India repopulated by characters from Hebrew mythology, and Asian languages springing up simultaneously because he read a story in a Jewish booklet from 200 BCE. And not a shred of corroborating evidence from the learned people in the communities he claims have a biblical origin ... from the booklet from 200 BCE.
However, I am a gentleman of open mind, and if you can give me a paragraph from your book (I see you're a biologist) that gives me evidence that I can take away and verify for myself that Jesus (or any other deity or god-man) created the planet's first Homo sapiens from mud and a rib in 4004 BCE (or any other date)- and maybe let me know if Adam was created before or after the dinosaurs, because there seems to be some sort of confusion/contradiction between what I see as the first creation myth and the second, re-creation myth - I will buy a full copy. But wait, I will go one better: I you can provide independently verifiable evidence for the existence of so much as one character from the booklet of Genesis, I will buy another copy for my mother. She too believes the universe and everything in it was created by Jesus - just don't press her for details and evidence. I'm going out on a bit of a limb for you here Robert, because I haven't actually checked for about the last 20 years. I'm only going on what I read in a book by a couple of rabbis, who rather sheepishly referred to some of the biblical truths in Genesis as "poetic evocations".
Not only that - seeing we're in the market of self-promotion right here - if you can provide independently verifiable evidence for just one event in human history that is portrayed in the entire booklet of Genesis, I will give you a copy of Revelation 1 of my own stuff.
And as an added bonus, if you actually contribute to the topic in hand (Jesus wants you to talk about him and not try to sell your book to an atheist) I will give you, free of charge and all obligation, a copy of Rev 2.
Just a reminder for you and Joshua, the topic here is (caps lock again) ANALOGY, METAPHOR AND ALLEGORY IN GENESIS CHAPTER 1.
Thank you Robert, I'm going to take my lightweight gasbaggery and have some breakfast.
Greetings from Australia.
You are making quite a few assumptions, Stuart, not the least of which is that I'm trying to promote my book - as science or otherwise. The book was written to glorify God, that's it. If it sells 100 copies or 100,000 isn't of great concern to me - I prayed about every chapter, God gave me His imprimatur, I proceeded with spiritual caution, and the finished product is an assertion of my Faith in His Dominion and an attempt to resolve His Creation account in Genesis with hard science.The topic to me is Creation Enigma and I should think you would want to broaden your horizon from analogy, metaphor, and allegory to other applicable disciplines if you are truly searching for Truth.
I'm not sure we read the same apologetics books, but the ones I value most stress the most recent scientific findings because they ALL point toward a creative force and away from the atheistic interpretation that the universe has always been in existence. As a geneticist, the intricacies of the cell, it's DNA, enzymes, and feedback receptors are so mind-bogglingly complex that any question they arose from random chemical interactions is purely laughable. I've been following your conversation with Joshua and Jake with interest but without particular appetite for anyone's method of "proof". Guess I'm a quantitative sort so without any agreed upon yardstick for evaluating the veracity of claims, they do tend to impress me as competition amongst who can come up with the most voluminous gasbaggery.
Lastly, I'm all for talking about Jesus, but I'm not sure of His relevance to Genesis. Genesis before Abram is prehistoric meaning it's authors had to reconstruct events from "fable". As a theologian, you're aware of that, but "fable" doesn't mean that God didn't ensure His early feats weren't recorded faithfully, if cryptically.
I don't dismiss the 7-day creation extravaganza, Adam and Eve, Noah, or the post-flood repopulation, but I haven't, alas, been able to retrieve any artifacts because a 40-day rainstorm and ensuing flood buries things pretty deep.
I'll give you a little tidbit to gnaw on that isn't in the book though I thought about including it. Do you know what the instantly recognizable attribute was that God gave to Cain so his enemies wouldn't slay him?
After much thought, I concluded they were epithelial eye folds (the so-called Oriental eye). The Bible chronicles some of the accomplishments of Cain's progeny, but not where they wandered to. Well, some obviously went to the Orient and the one's that went to Africa had the trait gradually bred out.
I you can provide independently verifiable evidence for the existence of so much as one character from the booklet of Genesis, I will buy another copy for my mothercheck out this link. You had better buy that book and do a little more research.
http://creation.com/archaeologist-con...
Joshua wrote: "I you can provide independently verifiable evidence for the existence of so much as one character from the booklet of Genesis, I will buy another copy for my mother
check out this link. You had be..."
Didn't read all of the many words, but which Genesis character were you surprising me with ...?
check out this link. You had be..."
Didn't read all of the many words, but which Genesis character were you surprising me with ...?
Robert wrote: "You are making quite a few assumptions, Stuart, not the least of which is that I'm trying to promote my book - as science or otherwise. The book was written to glorify God, that's it. If it sells 1..."
"God gave me His imprimatur,"
Can we back that up ...?
And how are we going with the mud and rib thing ...?
"God gave me His imprimatur,"
Can we back that up ...?
And how are we going with the mud and rib thing ...?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/sci...
This godless conspiracy regarding Asian genetic traits seems to have occurred 31,000 years before the Yahweh and the mud and rib business. And quite a few generations before the second generation biblical Homo sapiens skipped the whole bothersome business of evolving through hunter-gatherer society and gone straight for pastoralism and agriculture - in about 4000 BCE ... according to a Jewish pamphlet from about 200 BCE.
I guess the scientists didn't pray hard enough.
How were your conclusions accepted in the rest of the scientific community?
Not so very long ago, it was biblically correct to accept as God's own Truth the fact that Yahweh had given the Cain the Mark of Cain by zapping him and turning him black, and coupling that truth with the truth of Father Noah and his hangover cursing the innocent son of Ham - prior to their excursion from Mt Ararat to repopulate the African continent by trudging through all the grassless mud with the dinosaurs who were now not vegetarian anymore - was God's imprimatur for good god-fearing white Christians to keep black people as slaves. You American Christians even killed 600,000 of each other with no interference from Jesus in clearing the matter up. I mean, he could have - he helps you find you car keys and makes your wonky knee feel better when you pray to him.
This godless conspiracy regarding Asian genetic traits seems to have occurred 31,000 years before the Yahweh and the mud and rib business. And quite a few generations before the second generation biblical Homo sapiens skipped the whole bothersome business of evolving through hunter-gatherer society and gone straight for pastoralism and agriculture - in about 4000 BCE ... according to a Jewish pamphlet from about 200 BCE.
I guess the scientists didn't pray hard enough.
How were your conclusions accepted in the rest of the scientific community?
Not so very long ago, it was biblically correct to accept as God's own Truth the fact that Yahweh had given the Cain the Mark of Cain by zapping him and turning him black, and coupling that truth with the truth of Father Noah and his hangover cursing the innocent son of Ham - prior to their excursion from Mt Ararat to repopulate the African continent by trudging through all the grassless mud with the dinosaurs who were now not vegetarian anymore - was God's imprimatur for good god-fearing white Christians to keep black people as slaves. You American Christians even killed 600,000 of each other with no interference from Jesus in clearing the matter up. I mean, he could have - he helps you find you car keys and makes your wonky knee feel better when you pray to him.
"To decode the enigma of why the trees were created before the sun, it is necessary to first recognise why Tyrannosaurus rex were vegan; why fish didn’t eat porridge until they had evolved into sheep, and why the Adam Family looked like Jesus … but fire-breathing biblical leviathans didn’t."
And come back in a week or two and see what you've made of it.
Quite new. Quite an exercise.
Dr Barbara Thiering is a suggestion of a hint.
Think nothing of me.