Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[Birdjaguar]

This entirely misses the point. All truth is not equal. Divine truth is of a higher kind. As Hamlet said, the are more things than can be dealt with by science and human thought. Divine truth takes those things into account.

J

I'm pretty sure that is what I said.

 

[onejayhawk]

So say a bunch of folks about their own personal yet oddly mutually exclusive "truths".

It's called the human race. No need to be coy.

I'm pretty sure that is what I said.

If so, then I misunderstood you. You seemed to say truth is truth, whether quantifiable or not.

J

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's called the human race. No need to be coy.


If so, then I misunderstood you. You seemed to say truth is truth, whether quantifiable or not.

J

I said that some truths are quantifiable and they are different than those that are not. Religious truths tend not to be quantifiable and when one tries to make them quantifiable (provable), they lose their meaning and can make the religion look silly.

 

[onejayhawk]

I said that some truths are quantifiable and they are different than those that are not. Religious truths tend not to be quantifiable and when one tries to make them quantifiable (provable), they lose their meaning and can make the religion look silly.

Then I was not mistaken. My point is that are not just different than scientific truths, they are more important as well.

J

 

[Berzerker]

Are you agreeing that the earth in verse 1 is still the same earth as in verse 10 just in different forms?

The same form... Gen 1:1 refers to the Earth as it appeared on the 3rd Day - the dry land revealed by the receding waters. Before that the Earth was not dry, it was under the deep/water in Gen 1:2 and God did not create it.

Gen 1:2 describes events before the 6 days of creation - a dark, water covered "Earth" was about to encounter "God" - and whatever happened left behind a hammered bracelet (Heaven) to divide the waters and produce a spinning world closer to the Sun with land and life.

So I believe the primordial world in Gen 1:2 had a crust, probably quite thick and under miles of water. A collision(s) sheared off some of the crust (and water) leaving part of it behind to form the asteroid belt while most of the rest was pushed into a new orbit closer to the Sun.

The deep is the expanse of the universe. Liquid water was part of the earth that had no form when the universe (heavens and earth) was created in verse one.

The deep refers to the ocean and the definition of "Earth" does not include the water, just the dry land that was exposed when the water receded into seas. The first verse doesn't actually happen until the 2nd and 3rd days of creation.

The spirit was fluttering/vibrating the hydrogen and oxygen causing it to be called water. Thus it was called water even before the rest of the energy had been pronounced.

The water preceded the appearance of God, there was darkness upon the face of the deep - thats a reference to the ocean.

The whole of the universe and the location of the stars in the universe was the creation of the heavens in verse one.

Do you believe Heaven was created twice? How do you explain the creation of Heaven on the 2nd Day if it and/or the universe was created before the 1st Day?

Here's a relevant commentary regarding Gen 1:1

Attention should be called to an alternative rendering of this verse, preferred by many eminent commentators. It turns upon the grammatical point that the first word of the verse, “B’rêshîth,” means literally “In beginning,” not “In the beginning,” which would be “Bârêshîth.”

Consequently, it is contended that “B’rêshîth,” being grammatically in “the construct state,” should be translated “In the beginning of,” or “In the beginning when”; and not, as if in “the absolute state,” “In the beginning.”

If this contention, i.e. that b’rêshîth is in the construct state, be correct, Genesis 1:1 will be the protasis; Genesis 1:2 will be a parenthesis; Genesis 1:3 will be the apodosis: “In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth (now the earth was waste, &c.… upon the face of the waters), then God said, ‘Let there be light.’ ”

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/1-1.htm

When the fountains of the deep opened up that was the division of the first continent.

The fountains of the deep refers to the ocean invading the land

The expanse/firmament in verse 4 was singular describing the earth's atmosphere between the two bodies of water with the earth still in the center. The firmament is still "solid" today. That is why meteors burn up upon entry. That is the friction from entering the earth's atmosphere prevents them from doing more damage, due to the gas content. At one time it prevented a body of water from falling back down to earth.

The air is solid? How about those meteors? The firmament called Heaven preceded the Earth, therefore it cannot be the Earth's atmosphere.

even the Mesopotamians who they allegedly used as a source believed there were three levels of heavens containing the creators/gods and the stars.

The sky was divided up into 3 zones, Enlil had the north, Anu the center, and Ea the south.

Why would a body of water cancel out the ability of the earth to have a sky and air?

Because the Earth did not exist yet as dry land, it was submerged. The Earth had to be dry land before having a sky, otherwise the sky belonged to the deep (tehom). How would an Earth without form and void have a sky?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Then I was not mistaken. My point is that are not just different than scientific truths, they are more important as well.

J

I would agree, but....

Religious truths and scientific truths are different. Their relative importance is connected to their specific usefulness. Scientific truths make stuff and do stuff that can make many lives better and easier with less suffering. Religious truths can change people and how they behave in the world which in turn can make people bear the ills of the world more easily.

If you want to say that religious truths are absolutely more important than scientific ones, then I guess we would have to figure out which religious truths we are talking about.

 

[Berzerker]

Something can contain truth that is not scientific.

That I have to point this out while going on about the scientific method all the time earlier in the thread is kind of ironic. Your outlook on things is very narrow.

I dont know what you're talking about, all I said was myth is poetic gibberish if it has no truth...

 

[timtofly]

Because the Earth did not exist yet as dry land, it was submerged. The Earth had to be dry land before having a sky, otherwise the sky belonged to the deep (tehom). How would an Earth without form and void have a sky?

This description sounds like the earth was being drawn out of the abyss. The earth was being formed and when it was complete it had a sky.

I agree with all you have written, except we do not agree that God created everything. An earth without form and void would not be able to sustain a shape even in water.

The earth can go from form to some form after a collision with another large body. It cannot go to a formless state and void. Without form/formless means without shape or structure. Void means completely empty. If the earth has no shape and completely empty, how can it still be called the earth? In the beginning the earth had no shape and was empty. It would not be able to have water around it if there was no shape.

If the earth had shape previous to creation, then it was totally obliterated to end up having no shape. What was the former earth ended up being bits and pieces floating in the water.

All I am saying is that it did not even exist previous to creation.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I am supposed to accept there where copies of the guide in existence before Douglas Adams wrote it?

Why not? It makes more sense than what you've been asking me to believe. At least Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect ended up time traveling back to the time of the first humans, when they discovered what really happened, and that the closest thing the mice will ever get to an answer is "42."

Berzerker is demanding that I believe that Babylonian astrologers could see planets not visible without a telescope that had yet to be invented for many centuries futureward...


Seriously, while I love the idea of time travel and time travel/alt history is one of my favorite science fiction subgenres, the same holds for it as for anything else not proven: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd love it if time travel has been, or will be, invented. Right now I have no evidence that this has occurred.

 

[Berzerker]

I never said Babylonians could see the outer planets

 

[Leoreth]

I dont know what you're talking about, all I said was myth is poetic gibberish if it has no truth...

I know that you don't know what I am talking about. That is what I was talking about.

 

[timtofly]

Why not? It makes more sense than what you've been asking me to believe. At least Arthur Dent and Ford Prefect ended up time traveling back to the time of the first humans, when they discovered what really happened, and that the closest thing the mice will ever get to an answer is "42."

Berzerker is demanding that I believe that Babylonian astrologers could see planets not visible without a telescope that had yet to be invented for many centuries futureward...


Seriously, while I love the idea of time travel and time travel/alt history is one of my favorite science fiction subgenres, the same holds for it as for anything else not proven: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd love it if time travel has been, or will be, invented. Right now I have no evidence that this has occurred.

I would you had evidence as well. It beats human imagination. However without human imagination, we would not be able to communicate and pass on experiences to other humans.

 

[Berzerker]

I know that you don't know what I am talking about. That is what I was talking about.

I said myths are just poetic gibberish if they have no truth and this was your "rebuttal":

Something can contain truth that is not scientific.

What does that have to do with what I said? Where did I argue truth must be scientific and where did you show truth need not be scientific?

That I have to point this out while going on about the scientific method all the time earlier in the thread is kind of ironic. Your outlook on things is very narrow.

And where did I mention scientific method and how does it show myths with no truth actually contain truth without a scientific basis?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Is it not time for this thread to be taken out and shot yet?

 

[Berzerker]

take Leo with you

 

[Harv]

Too lazy to read 19 pages, but I want to throw a question out there. Hopefully we have not gone over this several thousand times.

Genesis 9:18

The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Genesis 10:1

This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah's sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.

The rest of Genesis 10 lists their sons. For example, Genesis 10:6:

The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan.

Some translations have Mizraim = Egypt.

My question is: Assuming a literal translation, we are approximately 4500 years after the Biblical Flood. Assuming approximately 30 years per generation, that would be 150 generations. Assuming these were Earth's only male survivors, how much diversity would there be in the "Y" Chromosome?

I am hopeful our resident expert on Biology still checks in from time to time. Otherwise, I might start another thread.

Follow-up question: How much mutation change is there in the "Y" Chromosome from generation to generation?

 

[Berzerker]

if the Flood story was literal we should see a major bottleneck with a handful of survivors and far less genetic diversity, but most people survived the flood

 

[onejayhawk]

if the Flood story was literal we should see a major bottleneck with a handful of survivors and far less genetic diversity, but most people survived the flood

It depends on what you mean by literal. For example, what did "the world" mean to prehistoric tribal people?

The flooding of the Red Sea and the Black Sea have both been hypothesized. Both are quite recent geologically. A river valley culture in either place would have been drowned past the tops of the surrounding heights.

J

 

[Berzerker]

It depends on what you mean by literal. For example, what did "the world" mean to prehistoric tribal people?

The flooding of the Red Sea and the Black Sea have both been hypothesized. Both are quite recent geologically. A river valley culture in either place would have been drowned past the tops of the surrounding heights.

J

Those specific floods dont account for the widespread nature of the myth. By the time the Black Sea flooded most recently ~7600 years ago other peoples already had flood myths. The Tlingit of Alaska date theirs to 14 kya, the timing coincides with the rising seas from melting ice sheets and possibly when the Bering land bridge was disappearing under the water. So its possible people living in the Black Sea basin already had a flood myth before the Mediterranean spilled over the Bosphorus.

 

[Flying Pig]

Or it's possible that flood myths spring up of their own accord relatively regularly - much like, well, floods.