Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[Arakhor]

Of mild interest to this thread, I was just reading on Wikipedia about asterisms (notable star patterns that aren't the classic constellations) and it noted that prior to approximately 500 BC, Libra was not considered one of the signs of the Zodiac, hence in Genesis, when Joseph is talking about the Sun and Moon and eleven stars, it's presumed that the writers are referring to the pre-Libran Zodiac signs.

Of course, it breaks up the handy "pattern" of twelves that conspiracy theories are made from, but I thought it was interesting, nonetheless.

 

[Berzerker]

If you're going to be snarky, Berzerker, absolutely no one can see planets beyond Saturn, even if people could see something that later turned out to be Uranus.

If I'm going to be snarky you'll tell me nobody saw Uranus because what they saw later turned out to be Uranus? Will you post a link to all these Sumerian scholars claiming Inanna is not the Sumerian Venus?

Of mild interest to this thread, I was just reading on Wikipedia about asterisms (notable star patterns that aren't the classic constellations) and it noted that prior to approximately 500 BC, Libra was not considered one of the signs of the Zodiac, hence in Genesis, when Joseph is talking about the Sun and Moon and eleven stars, it's presumed that the writers are referring to the pre-Libran Zodiac signs.

Joseph's dream was of his 11 brothers bowing before him, they interpreted that to mean Joseph was claiming he'd rule over them (or his tribe among the 12 would rule?).

As for Libra

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/zodiac.htm

The book of Job refers to Mazzaroth - the 12 signs of the zodiac

The Mazzaroth, also known as the zodiac, is the name given to the pattern of stars found on the celestial equator, or ecliptic. The ecliptic is an imaginary zone of the heavens containing the twelve signs within which lie the paths of the principal planets, and through which the sun passes in its annual course.

Of course, it breaks up the handy "pattern" of twelves that conspiracy theories are made from, but I thought it was interesting, nonetheless.

The Zodiac is a conspiracy?

 

[Arakhor]

If I'm going to be snarky you'll tell me nobody saw Uranus because what they saw later turned out to be Uranus? Will you post a link to all these Sumerian scholars claiming Inanna is not the Sumerian Venus?

I said that Ishtar was Venus, as conventional lore will tell you. Why do you keep woffling about Inanna? Moreover, note that I wrote "planets" with an italicised s.

Joseph's dream was of his 11 brothers bowing before him, they interpreted that to mean Joseph was claiming he'd rule over them (or his tribe among the 12 would rule?).

Actually, Joseph's dreams were about wheat sheaves and stars. What his brothers thought it is already mentioned in the Bible.

As for Libra
http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/zodiac.htm
The book of Job refers to Mazzaroth - the 12 signs of the zodiac

The Bible is of course internally self-consistent, with every story dating from exactly the same time. Also, different cultures see different things in the stars - shock horror!

The Zodiac is a conspiracy?

So I say that people make conspiracies out of lots of the same number popping up and you suggest that I'm instead suggesting that the zodiac is itself a conspiracy? Are you just trying really hard to have a silly argument now?

 

[El_Machinae]

It's a scientific theory, isn't it?

It's less a theory and more a name. We'll end up calling whatever phenomenon causes comet migration the 'Oort Cloud'

 

[Berzerker]

I said that Ishtar was Venus, as conventional lore will tell you. Why do you keep woffling about Inanna? Moreover, note that I wrote "planets" with an italicised s.

This is what you said:

Sitchen has the unique idea that Venus is Inanna, given that everybody else identifies Venus with Ishtar.

You also still haven't explained why Sitchen and his acolytes are the only people who do not associate Ishtar with Venus, as reputable Sumerian scholars do.

Where is your link to these Sumerian scholars claiming Inanna is not Venus?

Actually, Joseph's dreams were about wheat sheaves and stars. What his brothers thought it is already mentioned in the Bible.

Joseph had 2 dreams and both were interpreted to mean Joseph (or his tribe?) would rule over his brothers. The 2nd dream was about the Sun, Moon and 11 stars bowing before him. That was the dream you cited as proof the Zodiac had 11 signs before Libra was added later.

The Bible is of course internally self-consistent, with every story dating from exactly the same time. Also, different cultures see different things in the stars - shock horror!

What does that have to do with the zodiac of 12 signs appearing in the book of Job?

So I say that people make conspiracies out of lots of the same number popping up and you suggest that I'm instead suggesting that the zodiac is itself a conspiracy? Are you just trying really hard to have a silly argument now?

I asked if you were claiming the Zodiac was a conspiracy by virtue of having 12 signs. Calling the appearance of 12 in ancient cosmology a conspiracy is the silly argument.

Of course, it breaks up the handy "pattern" of twelves that conspiracy theories are made from

See? The Zodiac is part of your conspiracy.

 

[Arakhor]

You clearly have read what I wrote there, but I struggle to comprehend your cognitive processes if that is really what you think I meant. My pointing out a correlation between two topics should not imply in any way that one proves the other - that really is conspiracy-level thinking!

We were having enough trouble trying to unpick your bizarre ideas, without you complicating what anybody else is saying as well. Don't do that.

 

[Berzerker]

You clearly have read what I wrote there, but I struggle to comprehend your cognitive processes if that is really what you think I meant. My pointing out a correlation between two topics should not imply in any way that one proves the other - that really is conspiracy-level thinking!

Well that sure wasn't complicated. What two topics did you correlate and how did I imply one proves the other and how is that a conspiracy?

We were having enough trouble trying to unpick your bizarre ideas, without you complicating what anybody else is saying as well. Don't do that.

I try to avoid getting nasty in return to the insults, but then you accuse me of complicating your arguments? You dont need help with that, I'm still trying to figure out how nobody saw Uranus because they didn't know it was Uranus they were looking at.

I've devoted far too much time correcting mistakes from you and igneous rocks dont form under water to be lectured about "complicating" what others say.

Are you going to identify these Sumerian scholars who dont know about Inanna? Do you now understand Joseph's dreams were about his family and not a Zodiac with 11 signs?

 

[timtofly]

The account in Genesis, while some try to read in an interpretive manner, actually is not written in an interpretive style. It points out what God did as a fact. It is conspiracy thinking to view it any other way.

"God conspired to deceive us"?

Historians and the concept of writing down events was not just a deceptive invention, and scientific theory does not resolve the issue. People will always "see" and believe what they choose.

I am not even claiming the Bible was written by historians. Any one can write down or pass on their experiences. Up until the "scientific method" most just took it for granted that God preserved what made it into the Bible. I doubt science has replaced God, but it has replaced the need for humans to accept God.

In my opinion all other myths just try to interpret in human imagination form what happened. No one was around when it happened so no human observed or experienced what happened. God is lying or some human re-wrote the facts. God does not exist and some human came up with a believable account that lasted for thousands of years. An account that does not contradict science other than "God did not do it".

Matter can exist without light, and time does not depend on light. A day equals the amount of motion the earth does in one rotation. A year represents the orbit of the earth around the closest star. The zodiac is the progress of the solar system as it moves through the galaxy. If there was no interaction between light and matter or no light at all, the universe would be dead.

There is no scientific fact that states light is necessary for matter to exist. Even water can exist without light. I do not understand why we get hung up on the notion that all the matter in the universe did not pre-exist before light. The universe was not formed in a single point of explosion. The motion of the universe started when light re-acted with matter at the same time throughout the universe and the universe has been expanding since that point in time.

In my opinion any other account is just human imagination attemping to write God out of the account. Or the development of human understanding was not able to grasp the fullness of what happened. I suppose the same can be said for Genesis, but I have yet to see an argument against it, other than modern creationist just don't get it. "We" are not supposed to take things humans write down as literal. With that argument, we should not take any human observation as literal. We have fallen into the trap, that if enough people believe something, it is the truth. The "scientific method" is not supposed to give us the truth, but guides us in making informed observations that may change with time.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm done.

 

[Senethro]

See that berzerker? Timtofly is calling out all your creation myths as bogus. There goes all your evidence.

Why don't you two have a nice chat, really hash this disagreement out?

 

[Flying Pig]

The account in Genesis, while some try to read in an interpretive manner, actually is not written in an interpretive style. It points out what God did as a fact. It is conspiracy thinking to view it any other way.

"God conspired to deceive us"?

Historians and the concept of writing down events was not just a deceptive invention, and scientific theory does not resolve the issue. People will always "see" and believe what they choose.

I am not even claiming the Bible was written by historians. Any one can write down or pass on their experiences. Up until the "scientific method" most just took it for granted that God preserved what made it into the Bible. I doubt science has replaced God, but it has replaced the need for humans to accept God.

In my opinion all other myths just try to interpret in human imagination form what happened. No one was around when it happened so no human observed or experienced what happened. God is lying or some human re-wrote the facts. God does not exist and some human came up with a believable account that lasted for thousands of years. An account that does not contradict science other than "God did not do it".

Matter can exist without light, and time does not depend on light. A day equals the amount of motion the earth does in one rotation. A year represents the orbit of the earth around the closest star. The zodiac is the progress of the solar system as it moves through the galaxy. If there was no interaction between light and matter or no light at all, the universe would be dead.

There is no scientific fact that states light is necessary for matter to exist. Even water can exist without light. I do not understand why we get hung up on the notion that all the matter in the universe did not pre-exist before light. The universe was not formed in a single point of explosion. The motion of the universe started when light re-acted with matter at the same time throughout the universe and the universe has been expanding since that point in time.

In my opinion any other account is just human imagination attemping to write God out of the account. Or the development of human understanding was not able to grasp the fullness of what happened. I suppose the same can be said for Genesis, but I have yet to see an argument against it, other than modern creationist just don't get it. "We" are not supposed to take things humans write down as literal. With that argument, we should not take any human observation as literal. We have fallen into the trap, that if enough people believe something, it is the truth. The "scientific method" is not supposed to give us the truth, but guides us in making informed observations that may change with time.

Can you not argue that Genesis, even if supposed to be literal, is a matter of human beings trying to come up with an explanation of things that they don't really understand, and so is not so much allegorical as full of errors, but based on a true story? Reading it would thus be pretty much the same as reading most pre-modern history books, where you have to pick out what 'really' happened amongst any amount of mistakes, Chinese whispers and deliberate rubbish.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nice plan, except that the Bible is supposed to be the infallible word of God, so any plan that revolves around it being "full of errors" is unlikely to sit well with Christians and Jews. And nobody BUT them cares about establishing the historicity of Genesis anyway.

 

[Flying Pig]

Most of them consider it 'divinely inspired', which isn't quite the same thing. Biblical literalism is quite a new (19th-century Christian) and relatively fringe school of thought.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well I didn't say it was meant to be taken literally, but even as an allegory it should still be "true" in some way and, as you say, divinely inspired. But you're talking about uncomprehending humans badly descrining what they thought they saw or knew, and that's surely a very different ball park.

 

[warpus]

Yeah well the Klingon creation myth is pretty interesting too, maybe we should be talking about that instead.

 

[onejayhawk]

Yeah well the Klingon creation myth is pretty interesting too, maybe we should be talking about that instead.

That one does not allow all the gratuitous insults of specific religions and faith generally.

J

 

[warpus]

I don't think you know much about the Klingon religion or culture. You're expected to make fun of other religions if you're a Klingon warrior. Honour to the empire and Kortar, not fake religions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The account in Genesis, while some try to read in an interpretive manner, actually is not written in an interpretive style. It points out what God did as a fact. It is conspiracy thinking to view it any other way.

"God conspired to deceive us"?

Historians and the concept of writing down events was not just a deceptive invention, and scientific theory does not resolve the issue. People will always "see" and believe what they choose.

I am not even claiming the Bible was written by historians. Any one can write down or pass on their experiences. Up until the "scientific method" most just took it for granted that God preserved what made it into the Bible. I doubt science has replaced God, but it has replaced the need for humans to accept God.

In my opinion all other myths just try to interpret in human imagination form what happened. No one was around when it happened so no human observed or experienced what happened. God is lying or some human re-wrote the facts. God does not exist and some human came up with a believable account that lasted for thousands of years. An account that does not contradict science other than "God did not do it".

Matter can exist without light, and time does not depend on light. A day equals the amount of motion the earth does in one rotation. A year represents the orbit of the earth around the closest star. The zodiac is the progress of the solar system as it moves through the galaxy. If there was no interaction between light and matter or no light at all, the universe would be dead.

There is no scientific fact that states light is necessary for matter to exist. Even water can exist without light. I do not understand why we get hung up on the notion that all the matter in the universe did not pre-exist before light. The universe was not formed in a single point of explosion. The motion of the universe started when light re-acted with matter at the same time throughout the universe and the universe has been expanding since that point in time.

In my opinion any other account is just human imagination attemping to write God out of the account. Or the development of human understanding was not able to grasp the fullness of what happened. I suppose the same can be said for Genesis, but I have yet to see an argument against it, other than modern creationist just don't get it. "We" are not supposed to take things humans write down as literal. With that argument, we should not take any human observation as literal. We have fallen into the trap, that if enough people believe something, it is the truth. The "scientific method" is not supposed to give us the truth, but guides us in making informed observations that may change with time.

I don't understand the bolded part.

 

[timtofly]

See that berzerker? Timtofly is calling out all your creation myths as bogus. There goes all your evidence.

Why don't you two have a nice chat, really hash this disagreement out?

Not bogus. Genesis was the statement of fact account. All the others were interpretive accounts.

Can you not argue that Genesis, even if supposed to be literal, is a matter of human beings trying to come up with an explanation of things that they don't really understand, and so is not so much allegorical as full of errors, but based on a true story? Reading it would thus be pretty much the same as reading most pre-modern history books, where you have to pick out what 'really' happened amongst any amount of mistakes, Chinese whispers and deliberate rubbish.

The Genesis account seems assertive and to the point. It has been interpreted and speculated about for a very long time. I am not sure we can prove the intent of the writer, but even in the first century, believers put forth that it was the revelation of God.

I don't understand the bolded part.

My theory is that God created matter, but energy and by extension motion did not happen until light was added. The first day was the first day of the universe. Not even the solar system. The first day of the solar system was the third day of the "creation" week. In the first chapter some of the actions were stated twice. Each time with different wording. "Let it be" "made" and "created" were used several times for the same action. I have no idea why some people repeat statements using different wording. I have been told that it is done to get the point across to a wider variety of individuals.

It makes sense to me, that God did not re-create the items from having done so in the very first statement. He manipulated what was already there. The creation of matter before such matter became the known universe does not contradict what we do know. Every one agrees that there was time between the formative period of the earth and the beginning of the universe. It was more than the stated 3 days. Time is relative, and even early believers pointed that out in relation to God. My point was there was no energy, time, and motion until God introduced light into the universe. Even the formless water world known as the planet earth was created before time, light, and energy. I can imagine even the solar system in chaos before the planets were placed in their proper orbits. Except for the so called fixed constellations, the universe shows signs of chaotic exploding "births". We assume that even the constellations had traumatic starts, yet Genesis points out that God put the stars in a fixed position.

When the light was added there had to be a tremendous amount of energy happening. God seemed to have created some fixed "art work" with some and left others in a chaotic state.

 

[brennan]

Matter is energy. Considerably more energy than some light in fact.