Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[Birdjaguar]

Then why make the assumption? I dont mind if people think the recent invention of the telescope precludes more ancient peoples from knowing about the outer planets, but calling it a fact and ignoring the evidence they gave us showing their knowledge of those outer planets requires a closed mind.


Until something is fully 100% proven it aint a fact

Well at least we know now that none of what you claiming as true is an actual fact. As far as i can tell, the only two facts you have presented are that ancient peoples made designs with dots and that there are different cultural mythologies that contain similar stories. Everything else is speculation with a very low probability of being true. In addition, the dependence of your case on exceedingly low probability events, like a telescope 6,000 years ago, make your entire argument frightfully unlikely to be true.

 

[Arakhor]

If only you were correcting anything, Berzerker. You clearly don't understand what pantheon means (all the gods of a particular religion or region or a temple to such) and I've been talking about planetary associations, which you're constantly diverging from the accepted standard, apparently simply because Sitchen does.

 

[Flying Pig]

So you could never have a scientific fact that's equivalent to: "X never existed before Y". I don't think, anyway.

By the scientific method, you can't prove a negative - you can prove 'there are white swans' but never 'there are no black swans', because there will always be places you haven't looked that might contain black swans (like Australia). This is called the 'problem of induction', which is the observation that you can't extrapolate that X always happens from any number of observations of X happening. In practice, we do this all the time, because science isn't about finding theories which absolutely, definitely must be true, but finding the explanations that make the best sense of what we observe. We can say, for example, 'coinage was invented in about 500 BC in Lydia', knowing full well that there might be evidence out there to say that it was invented in about 1000 BC in China, because that's what fits the evidence so far.

 

[warpus]

A fact is something thats true, it is not something that might be true, or is likely true, or probably true.

There is a difference between a fact and a scientific fact.

What you ask for is impossible to exist as a scientific fact. What you're doing is an attempt at a "gotcha". --> "Gotcha! It's not a fact! I win!", all while most parts of your argument are severely flawed. If I were you I would work on improving the argument rather than jumping on the "it's not a fact" thing.

 

[civvver]

Please stop using "Christians" to mean creationists, as there are likely upwards of a billion Christians who do not interpret the Genesis story literally.

Amen brother, and that's where I have a gigantic issue with society today painting all christians out as fundamentalist bible thumpers.

Again I will reference my catholic education class. Last night we discussed the catholic church's views on creation. In the catholic tradition genesis (and possible other parts of the Torah like exodus but we didn't get that far) is interpreted as allegory. In other words it is non literal and meant to convey a spiritual truth not a factual one.

Here's how they broke it down. The first chapter of genesis is actually a Semitic oral traditional creation account. It's not christian or Jewish, semetics are actually a whole region of peoples not exclusively jews, although they've become almost interchangeable today. So that's part of why genesis is so similar to other origin mythologies of the region like gilgamesh which is Persian.

The format of it is like a poem. God did something, and said it was good, a day passed. God did something, said it was good, a day passed. You can clearly see the oral tradition being passed on here and that seems to be what the author is conveying, that this is a simple story of creation not a factual account. It is not meant that it took literally 7 earth days to make everything.

The main takeaways from it then are spiritual truths that god made stuff happen, whether you call it evolution or intelligent design or whatever, god had a hand in it. Back then most civilizations worshiped many gods and many of them were stars and the sun and stuff so this monotheistic idea that there was one god and that god created the stars and sun was a big idea and a big deal. In essence the one god is above all the others, he made the other god's almost. And the later come birds and fish, plenty of cultures worshiped versions of those two. Again, they came from the one god.

And then when man finally showed up he was created special. Whether we evolved from other stuff or whatever, the point is man has something animals don't.

There's also a second creation account at the start of chapter 2 where is says god formed man from clay and breathed life into him. This basically confirms that these are oral traditions being jotted down cus there's two of them. The author took two stories he liked and recorded both. The second one is important from a spiritual context because it examines god's close relationship with man, that man is divinely inspired.

Nothing in either of those myths contradicts evolution. Indeed that missing link scientists are always looking for might just be whatever happened when the story says god breathed life into man. At some point our brains starting thinking, rationalizing, and knowing stuff, beyond what the smartest creatures are capable of. We become self aware. Science may eventually uncover that link and we'll be like holy crap how was *that* possible?!? I don't think the creation myth is that far off when view in that context.

 

[warpus]

Amen brother, and that's where I have a gigantic issue with society today painting all christians out as fundamentalist bible thumpers.

Maybe if the moderate Christians stood up and denounced creationism people would listen.

 

[Berzerker]

Well at least we know now that none of what you claiming as true is an actual fact.

Now? Where have I insisted my opinions and interpretations are facts?

In addition, the dependence of your case on exceedingly low probability events, like a telescope 6,000 years ago, make your entire argument frightfully unlikely to be true.

My case doesn't depend on a telescope, that was the rebuttal offered by Val et al. She called it "fact" and I said it was an assumption, not a fact.

If only you were correcting anything, Berzerker.

Where is your link to these Sumerian scholars claiming Ishtar was the Sumerian Venus?

You clearly don't understand what pantheon means (all the gods of a particular religion or region or a temple to such) and I've been talking about planetary associations, which you're constantly diverging from the accepted standard, apparently simply because Sitchen does.

A pantheon also refers to a group of gods, as in a pantheon of 12 gods. You said there were no pantheon of 12 gods in pre-classical Greece. You're wrong, Hesiod refers to both the 12 Titans and the 12 Olympians. As for planetary associations, why doesn't Utu or the other gods you mentioned other than Marduk appear in the Enuma Elish?

There is a difference between a fact and a scientific fact.

What is the difference and where did anyone mention these two different "facts"?

What you ask for is impossible to exist as a scientific fact. What you're doing is an attempt at a "gotcha". --> "Gotcha! It's not a fact! I win!", all while most parts of your argument are severely flawed. If I were you I would work on improving the argument rather than jumping on the "it's not a fact" thing.

It is a fact? Why dont you accuse Val and others of this "Gotcha, I win" when they declare their opinions are facts? I dont think my argument is improved by redefining "fact" to accommodate people who think their assumptions are facts.

 

[warpus]

"The telescope was invented in the 1600s" appears to be a fact, yes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Amen brother, and that's where I have a gigantic issue with society today painting all christians out as fundamentalist bible thumpers.

Again I will reference my catholic education class. Last night we discussed the catholic church's views on creation. In the catholic tradition genesis (and possible other parts of the Torah like exodus but we didn't get that far) is interpreted as allegory. In other words it is non literal and meant to convey a spiritual truth not a factual one.

It's a valuable insight. Oodles and oodles of people have interpreted that story of Joshua as if God had actually helped him murder and steal a bunch of land. Because they 'deserved' it. But, if you know it's just an oral myth, you suddenly realize that this 'insight' isn't true. That people have been worshipping a god of murder and theft and calling Him 'good' for generations, when the actual event didn't take place. That's a pretty big theological leap.

 

[onejayhawk]

It is possible to interpret Genesis as literal. First you have to give the writer a platform from which to observe, eg dream, vision. Next you have to acknowledge that he was pre-literate and lacked scientific knowledge past personal observation. He is describing things for which no words yet existed. Cast the story in the then approved teaching method. Transmit through a few centuries. Through a filter like that, would eye account reporting do better?

We know from Anthropology that stories can be orally transmitted for generations with good accuracy, but there is some loss and linguistic drift. More changes occur when the story is set to writing. After rendition, more cultural and linguistic drift to modern times. What is literally true can be interpreted as allegory. What is artistic license can be seen as attempted literal description.

J

 

[brennan]

A fact is something thats true, it is not something that might be true, or is likely true, or probably true.

So you believe people were grinding and polishing lenses for a very long time to magnify objects but you think its a fact nobody ever magnified an image produced by a 2nd lens before the 1600s?

Pardon me if I dont join you out on that limb, I bet damn near every kid in the world would do that within minutes of having two lenses. I remember doing it as a kid.

When somebody asserts that something is a fact they are saying that they believe 5hey have sufficient knowledge to think that their assertion is definitely true.

If you went out with two lenses and tried to use them together and you had no idea how optics worked, badly shaped lenses because your lensmaker didn't know how to shape the lens correctly to remove aberrations and glass that was barely clear enough to see through... then you'd see bugger all. Which was probably what happened to everyone who tried it up until about 1600 because, as I said, the technical and theoretical knowledge to make sufficiently high quality lenses just didn't exist.

 

[Arakhor]

A pantheon also refers to a group of gods, as in a pantheon of 12 gods. You said there were no pantheon of 12 gods in pre-classical Greece. You're wrong, Hesiod refers to both the 12 Titans and the 12 Olympians.

No. Pantheon means all the gods, quite literally so. Quite apart from the fact that there were 13 Olympians, depending on whether you're counting both Hestia and Dionysis or not, there were other Greek gods as well, Hecate, Pan, Aesculapius, Nike, Tyche, Heracles and so on, as well as many other Titans (not just twelve!) and other divine beings, such as the Graces, the Fates, the Muses and various elemental deities, such Nereus, Oceanus (and on, and on...) Blithely insisting that one particular subset of gods (even if it's the most important and most well-known subset) constitutes a pantheon means that you are disregarding the entire panoply of deities worshipped at various points in 1,000 or more years of Greek history and shows that you simply do not know how to use the word correctly.

As for planetary associations, why doesn't Utu or the other gods you mentioned other than Marduk appear in the Enuma Elish?

How should I know? I didn't write the Enuma Elish and I'm not the one insisting that it's an accurate recounting of our solar system. There's also a handy chart on this page here which maps the various days of the week, but you think it's more plausible that God rested on the seventh day and made it holy because Earth is the seventh planet working backwards from Pluto, than, say, because there were seven visible "planets" in the ancient sky and the ancient Hebrews were working with what they knew.

 

[timtofly]

The error in modern "Christian" thought is letting humans interpret the Bible to make it fit human understanding. Humans only know what they observe, and that does not make it right or wrong.

From the arguments posted, no human will nor can trust a God who leaves it up to humans to provide an accurate account.

The only argument scholars have on the difference between the oral and written account, is that the written account was the accepted account to put into writing. It has nothing to do with how many interpretations there were. After the written account humans have added back interpretations, yet none of them have changed the written account one bit.

One does not have to accept the written account at all. One can believe any interpretation that man gives, or nothing at all.

 

[Berzerker]

"The telescope was invented in the 1600s" appears to be a fact, yes.

It was invented in the 1600's... What is not a fact is "nobody before 1600 had a telescope". Something can be re-invented when knowledge is lost.

When somebody asserts that something is a fact they are saying that they believe 5hey have sufficient knowledge to think that their assertion is definitely true.

A fact is not something I believe to be true, it is the truth.

If you went out with two lenses and tried to use them together and you had no idea how optics worked, badly shaped lenses because your lensmaker didn't know how to shape the lens correctly to remove aberrations and glass that was barely clear enough to see through... then you'd see bugger all. Which was probably what happened to everyone who tried it up until about 1600 because, as I said, the technical and theoretical knowledge to make sufficiently high quality lenses just didn't exist.

Did you read my links? They were trying to grind and polish lenses to magnify objects and achieving their goal. But I'm supposed to accept as fact nobody ever magnified the image produced by a 2nd lens? I dont think thats literally impossible.

No. Pantheon means all the gods, quite literally so.

"The definition of a pantheon is a temple dedicated to all the Gods, or the name of a group of Gods, or a building that is dedicated to the heroes and heroines of a nation".

http://www.yourdictionary.com/pantheon

A pantheon of 12 gods refers to 12 gods forming an elite group, just like how we use pantheon to describe the elite members of any larger group, from athletes to actors, etc. The pantheon of baseball does not include all baseball players.

Quite apart from the fact that there were 13 Olympians, depending on whether you're counting both Hestia and Dionysis or not, there were other Greek gods as well, Hecate, Pan, Aesculapius, Nike, Tyche, Heracles and so on, as well as many other Titans (not just twelve!) and other divine beings, such as the Graces, the Fates, the Muses and various elemental deities, such Nereus, Oceanus (and on, and on...) Blithely insisting that one particular subset of gods (even if it's the most important and most well-known subset) constitutes a pantheon means that you are disregarding the entire panoply of deities worshipped at various points in 1,000 or more years of Greek history and shows that you simply do not know how to use the word correctly.

http://www.talesbeyondbelief.com/titans-mythology/titans-family-tree.htm

Do you see 12 Titans? I do, they are the primordial gods. Thats the subject we're discussing, not how many gods, or demigods, or whatever are found in other myths. It doesn't matter if there were other Titans, they were the children etc of the original 12. Same thing for the 12 Olympians, their children did not increase their number beyond the 12 - they did not become the 13 (depending on who you count) or the 17 or the 33 Olympians. The reason being 12 was sacred based on creation myth.

How should I know?

Well, if you dont know why are you telling me the star in VA 243 cant be the Sun because it doesn't show the symbol of Utu/Shamash? If Utu/Shamash doesn't appear in the Enuma Elish, why would a cylinder seal depicting the Enuma Elish show his symbol for the Sun?

I didn't write the Enuma Elish and I'm not the one insisting that it's an accurate recounting of our solar system. There's also a handy chart on this page here which maps the various days of the week, but you think it's more plausible that God rested on the seventh day and made it holy because Earth is the seventh planet working backwards from Pluto, than, say, because there were seven visible "planets" in the ancient sky and the ancient Hebrews were working with what they knew.

Thats the 2nd time you mentioned the days of the week. Where did I say our days of the week come from Genesis? And where is your link to all these Sumerian scholars you claim deny Inanna is the Sumerian Venus? What wiki page were you "quoting" as proof Ishtar was the Sumerian Venus?

Yes, the Earth is the 7th planet and was represented in both Incan and Sumerian myth by 7 dots. In Sumerian myth the Earth is Enlil's domain and Shulgi said "the celestial 7 is 50". Enlil's rank in the Sumerian pantheon was 50 and the Earth - the celestial 7 - was his planet. Their pantheon had 12 ranks in increments of 5 up to 60, that was the rank of Enlil's father, An/Anu. Enlil's older brother was Ea/Enki and he had the rank of 40, these were the original trinity.

 

[bhavv]

It was invented in the 1600's... What is not a fact is "nobody before 1600 had a telescope". Something can be re-invented when knowledge is lost.

If telescopes existed prior to then as lost knowledge, then surely they would have some day been found via archeological digs.

Created objects don't just suddenly disappear and cease to exist.

 

[Arakhor]

Given that you've established that something can only be a fact if it can't possibly be wrong, Berzerker, I see no need to accept your assertions as anything more than assumptions. I am also not responsible for the clear misuse of a given word. As it is, we're just going round and round in circles because you refuse to accept almost anything anyone is saying.

 

[warpus]

It was invented in the 1600's... What is not a fact is "nobody before 1600 had a telescope". Something can be re-invented when knowledge is lost.

And we have no reason at all to believe something like that happened in this case, unless we're trying to push some sort of a creationist agenda it seems, in which case it seems to be a valid consideration just because it helps your argument, even though, again, there is no reason at all for us to think that such a thing might have happened.

 

[bhavv]

Computers existed in the stone age.

You cant prove that they didn't so I am right.

 

[brennan]

A fact is not something I believe to be true, it is the truth.

Did you read my links? They were trying to grind and polish lenses to magnify objects and achieving their goal. But I'm supposed to accept as fact nobody ever magnified the image produced by a 2nd lens? I dont think thats literally impossible.

Your statement "x is a fact" is a statement about your belief in the truth of the subject x. It is obviously true that your grounds for the assertion could be wrong.

You can see the clarity of rock crystal lenses if you look up e.g. the Visby lenses or the Nimrud lens. Not really suitable for a telescope and your own source points out that ancient lenses were not ground to the correct shape - until the 17thC it was believed that a lens should be shaped spherically because nobody had done the math to show otherwise.

Again, you make a great fuss about other people's 'assumptions' but totally fail to scrutinise your own. This is how to fail in convincing anybody.

 

[Borachio]

Computers existed in the stone age.

You cant prove that they didn't so I am right.

It's easy enough to prove that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist by draining Loch Ness.

I'm reminded of the archaelogist who discovered a lot of copper wires at some site and concluded that the people there had had telegraphs/telephones.

Meanwhile a Nazi archaelogist excavated another site; found no wires, and concluded the people there had had wireless(es)... er... I mean, radios.