Another look at the moon landing.

[trophy33]

Confused.com

Obviously.

 

[Apple Sky]

Obviously.

Your not making an ounce of sense.

 

[trophy33]

That doesn't make any sense. God is the one who describes the Leviathan in Job. Which if not real means either God utters fiction as real or that God is a liar.

And my mind is boggled as to how Rahab is supposed to be mythological.

You're on vary shaky ground.

Most American evangelicals, for some reason, decided that mythology is a no-no genre, unworthy of being in the Bible. Biblical writers could never ever used it. While, on the other hand, songs, erotic poems, prophecies confusing millions of people for centuries and similar are fine.

I suspect this comes from the intense influence of the Seventh Day Adventist doctrine about the young earth on the American protestantism.

 

[trophy33]

Your not making an ounce of sense.

Sigh. Not everything in the bible must be literal, precise or even original and you are not an unbeliever if you do not take everything literally.

 

[ozso]

Most American evangelicals, for some reason, decided that mythology is a no-no genre, unworthy of being in the Bible. Biblical writers could never ever used it. While, on the other hand, songs, erotic poems, prophecies confusing millions of people for centuries and similar are fine.

I suspect this comes from the intense influence of the Seventh Day Adventist doctrine about the young earth on the American protestantism.

Like you said, the Bible is a compilation of books. And you're saying since some books contain songs and poetry, that means books like Genesis and Job contain mythology. That's absurd reasoning. Furthermore you're suggesting those books have always been considered mythology by the church until the evangelicals and SDAs stepped in. I don't know who you're getting this nonsense from, but you need to switch the channel.

 

[trophy33]

Like you said, the Bible is a compilation of books. And you're saying since some books contain songs and poetry, that means books like Genesis and Job contain mythology. That's absurd reasoning. Furthermore you're suggesting those books have always been considered mythology by the church until the evangelicals and SDAs stepped in. I don't know who you're getting this nonsense from, but you need to switch the channel.

No, I am not saying that Bible contains mythology because it contains songs. Its independent on each other. Both are just examples that Bible is not a scientific or always literal library.

I am saying that Biblical writers were free to use any genre they liked and thats why there is no problem with mythological elements, like Genesis 1. There is no necessity to take it literally, when it uses imagery not consistent with science or with history.

 

[Strong in Him]

Here we go again, your lack of belief in Gods word saddens me

Who said anything about not believing in God's word?
The statement was "the Bible was not written by God" - it wasn't. Inspired by God, yes; written by God, no. It was written by human authors.
That doesn't mean that they made mistakes, or wrote untruths because they were inspired by the Spirit. But neither were they put into a trance while God took over their quill pens, or made to take pages of dictation.

 

[ozso]

No, I am not saying that Bible contains mythology because it contains songs. Its independent on each other. Both are just examples that Bible is not a scientific or always literal library.

I am saying that Biblical writers were free to use any genre they liked and thats why there is no problem with mythological elements, like Genesis 1. There is no necessity to take it literally, when it uses imagery not consistent with science or with history.

Mythology means mythological as in not real, make-believe, fiction. Therefore if you're going to say Genesis is fiction, you're saying God (YHWH) is as fictional as Zuse or Oden.

One can say that some the language of Genesis is figurative rather than litteral, but that doesn't equate to it being fictional. If you're going to say some of it is fictional then you might as well say all of it is fictional. And all of the other books that reference Genesis, which are several are fictional.

The whole basis for Jesus is founded in Genesis 1. So of Genesis 1 is fictional, that means Jesus is fictional too. If Adam and Eve is fictional, what does that make the second Adam who is Jesus?

 

[trophy33]

Mythology means mythological as in not real, make-believe, fiction. Therefore if you're going to say Genesis is fiction, you're saying God (YHWH) is as fictional as Zuse or Oden.

I wonder how you came up with such reasoning. Because there is no firmament and stars are not in it, God is not real? How does it follow?

 

[ozso]

I wonder how you came up with such reasoning. Because there is no firmament and stars are not in it, God is not real? How does it follow?

Because the same source that's telling you there's a firmament and stars in it is telling you there's God. As for the firmament and the stars in it, haven't you ever seen an armillary before? Genesis 1 speaks of the firmament of both the earth and the heavens. From our perspective the sun, moon, planets and stars move around the earth in a globular fashion. That's why there are astronomy globes. That's why we say sunset and sunrise. That's one perspective of viewing the heavens. They also tell the seasons like Genesis says. When I lived in the hot desert, I was always happy when I saw Orion rising because that meant fall aka the autumnal equinox was on the way. None of that goes against science, it's just a matter of perspective. All of us who say sunrise know the sun isn't really rising, but rather the earth is rotating. But as you say, since Genesis isn't a book of science, it's written according to the perspective of the sun and moon and constellations rising and setting in the sphere of heavens appearance wise.

The word used for "firmament" in some translations just means expanse. According to science are there stars in the expanse? Yes.

 

[Strong in Him]

Mythology means mythological as in not real, make-believe, fiction.

No, that's the second meaning of the word.
A myth is a story.

1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
   "ancient Celtic myths"
   
   
   
2. 2.
   a widely held but false belief or idea.
   "the belief that evening primrose oil helps to cure eczema is a myth, according to dermatologists"

Therefore if you're going to say Genesis is fiction, you're saying God (YHWH) is as fictional as Zuse or Oden.

Genesis is only fiction if you define the word "myth" only to mean fiction.

One can say that some the language of Genesis is figurative rather than litteral, but that doesn't equate to it being fictional.

The only person who has said it is fictional is you, by your definition of the word "myth".

 

[Apple Sky]

I wonder how you came up with such reasoning. Because there is no firmament and stars are not in it, God is not real?

Like @Ceallaigh said, If you are saying that there is no firmament above with the moon, sun & the stars in it, you are denying God's truth.
If God inspired the Bible it must be all true from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[trophy33]

Like @Ceallaigh said, If you are saying that there is no firmament above with the moon, sun & the stars in it, you are denying God's truth.
If God inspired the Bible it must be all true from Genesis to Revelation.

According to the same Bible, Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." Now what? Is it literally true?

 

[Apple Sky]

According to the same Bible, Jesus said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." Now what? Is it literally true?

Of course not, that is having discernment.

 

[ozso]

No, that's the second meaning of the word.
A myth is a story.

Mythology is from the Greek mythos for story-of-the-people, and logos for word or speech, so the spoken story of a people. The idea regarding Genesis is that it's the word of God, not a story created by people.

Genesis is only fiction if you define the word "myth" only to mean fiction.

A story is a tale ie fiction. Genesis is an accounting of what actually happened. An accounting of what accounting happened is not categorized as mythology.

The only person who has said it is fictional is you, by your definition of the word "myth".

The definition of myth is not 'a description or accounting of what actually happened'.

 

[trophy33]

Because the same source that's telling you there's a firmament and stars in it is telling you there's God.

1. The same source also tells me how to divorce (but Jesus basically said it was not inspired by God), the same source also tells me that our thinking is in kidneys, that God killed Leviathan and Rahab (mythological monsters), that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on Earth, that Augustus counted the whole world in his census, that mountains sing, that ice comes from a womb, that darkness rests in some specific place, that ice is as hard as a stone...

2. The existence of God is not dependent on the Bible. People believed in God long before any biblical book was written.

As for the firmament and the stars in it, haven't you ever seen an armillary before? Genesis 1 speaks of the firmament of both the earth and the heavens. From our perspective the sun, moon, planets and stars move around the earth in a globular fashion. That's why there are astronomy globes. That's why we say sunset and sunrise. That's one perspective of viewing the heavens. They also tell the seasons like Genesis says. When I lived in the hot desert, I was always happy when I saw Orion rising because that meant fall aka the autumnal equinox was on the way. None of that goes against science, it's just a matter of perspective. All of us who say sunrise know the sun isn't really rising, but rather the earth is rotating. But as you say, since Genesis isn't a book of science, it's written according to the perspective of the sun and moon and constellations rising and setting in the sphere of heavens appearance wise.

I do not even try to read Genesis for getting a scientific picture, its a misuse of the book.

The word used for "firmament" in some translations just means expanse. According to science are there stars in the expanse? Yes.

Thats a misunderstanding of the Mesopotamian worldview. They believed in a real firmament which was supposed to lay on the highest mountains, with doors and windows for rain etc.

 

[trophy33]

Of course not, that is having discernment.

You are allowed to have the same discernment regarding the Old Testament. Not everything in it is literal. When we fly to the space, there is simply no firmament, case closed. You do not need to fanatically hold to your wrong reading of Genesis no matter what.

 

[ozso]

1. The same source also tells me how to divorce (but Jesus basically said it was not inspired by God), the same source also tells me that our thinking is in kidneys, that God killed Leviathan and Rahab (mythological monsters), that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on Earth, that Augustus counted the whole world in his census, that mountains sing, that ice comes from a womb, that darkness rests in some specific place, that ice is as hard as a stone...

According to Mark 10:4 Jesus said "it was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law”. The idea that the Law was not inspired by God is ridiculous. "kidneys" is also translated as "heart". And we all to this day saying things like "I know in my heart". Or even "heart of heart". It's not scientifically accurate, but everyone says it and knows what it means. Just like "I have a frog in my throat" or "Bob is always shooting his mouth off". Leviathan and Rahab (I thought at first you meant Rahab the human woman) is just using another word to describe something. It's like saying the American colonies sought to escape the coils or tentacles of England. All of these things need to be put into perspective like "sunrise and sunset".

2. The existence of God is not dependent on the Bible. People believed in God long before any biblical book was written.

People have believed in a plethora of Gods throughout time. How do you know out of all of them that YHWH is the only one true God?

I do not use Genesis for science, its a misuse of the book.

I agree. Genesis explains how the world was actually created from human perspective.

Thats a misunderstanding of the biblical worldview. They believed in a real firmament which was supposed to lay on the highest mountains, with doors and windows for rain etc.

The worldview was limited to the amount of knowledge that existed at the time. Now that we know more, we understand more of what Genesis 1 is saying because our perspective has changed as knowledge has grown. The same is true of science itself.

 

[trophy33]

The idea that the Law was not inspired by God is ridiculous.

For example, the Law about divorce was given by Moses, not by God.

"kidneys" is also translated as "heart".

Dynamically - in Hebrew its literally kidneys, in our culture we say "heart".. But heart is also scientifically wrong.

It's not scientifically accurate, but everyone says it and knows what it means.

Agreed.

People have believed in a plethora of Gods throughout time. How do you know out of all of them that YHWH is the only one true God?

Natural theology will give you quite precise ideas about the highest God. Polytheism is basically just superstition and foolishness, even more if some silly idols are involved. The Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH does not change anything.

I agree. Genesis explains how the world was actually created from human perspective.

If by the human perspective you mean the bronze age Mesopotamian human perspective, agreed. It was not written from our 21st century western human perspective, though.

The worldview was limited to the amount of knowledge that existed at the time. Now that we know more, we understand more of what Genesis 1 is saying because our perspective has changed as knowledge has grown. The same is true of science itself.

Partially agreed. We now know more, thats why we can see that some descriptions and concepts the Hebrew writers used were limited by their era.

 

[Apple Sky]

You do not need to fanatically hold to your wrong reading of Genesis no matter what.

There is no wrong reading of Genesis 1, to think otherwise is to deny the whole Bible.