Believing VS. Understanding

[Lilandra]

It seems that all Creationist arguments come back to believing that Genesis is literally the word of God.

I don't blame TEs for anything. If anything I pity them for not being able to accept God as He Himself has told and shown us through His Word and creation.

But if you examine Genesis it is deeply rooted in Mesopotamian folklore. The flood story for example bears a strong resemblance to the Babylonian story Gilgamesh.

The most striking thing about Genesis is that the stories attempt to explain something observed in the natural world using a supernatural explanation. Like rainbows as a promise from God rather than moisture droplets in the air reflecting the light spectrum. The Eden story is full of supernatural explanations from the creation of the Earth to childbirth pain.

Evolution explains childbirth pain better than a curse from God on women from another woman, who admittedly had no knowledge of Good or Evil. Evolution explains that childbirth difficulty in humans is due to the shift from quadrapedalism to bipedalism and the large size of human heads.

YEC seems to me to be a clinging to the primitive manner of explaining nature. The old ways required belief or faith in a sacred explanation. Science requires none. It is the difference between believing and attempting to understand.
In fact, questioning is discouraged with supernatural explanations.

My faith is in God and His Word. His Word says that God created everything in 6 days, not billions of years. I'm not looking for evidence to discredit that.

What is the purpose of beliefs becoming entrenched? Understanding things like disease and childbirth can lead to breakthroughs that reduces suffering. The only explanation I can think of is that it erodes religious authority. Most religions are strongly aligned with the patriarchal hierarchy. Authority is given straight from God to leaders to men, etc. Not that authority is unnecessary.

What is wrong with questioning religious authority? What is wrong with questioning YECS validity?

What's wrong with the approach of "I don't agree with the YECs, I accept evolution like atheists do" This will show you to be more like the atheist and accepting of science and your witness will be more effective, as opposed to slamming YECs.

What is wrong with trying to understand the world rather than believe that the Earth was created in 6 days? Why assign scientific inquiry to atheists?

What are YECs protecting?

 

[vossler]

It seems that all Creationist arguments come back to believing that Genesis is literally the word of God.

I can't argue with that!

The most striking thing about Genesis is that the stories attempt to explain something observed in the natural world using a supernatural explanation.

I see it as the opposite, stories that attempt to explain something supernatural via the natural world of a written language.

What are YECs protecting?

God and His Word.

 

[Lilandra]

God and His Word.

If there is anything I am certain of it is this. God does not require our defense. Especially a defense that involves clinging to primitive thinking. The Bible says that God's ways are not our ways.

 

[Lilandra]

I can't argue with that!
I see it as the opposite, stories that attempt to explain something supernatural via the natural world of a written language.

God and His Word.

Besides, who can decribe the nature of God or the universe in a few passages with limited knowledge?

 

[billwald]

This effect is probably caused by the common perversion of thje Gospel which teaches that Christianity is based upon "believing in" several dogma but not requiring that any of them be understood.

 

[shernren]

The most striking thing about Genesis is that the stories attempt to explain something observed in the natural world using a supernatural explanation. Like rainbows as a promise from God rather than moisture droplets in the air reflecting the light spectrum. The Eden story is full of supernatural explanations from the creation of the Earth to childbirth pain.

Not only that, the stories are phenomenologically oriented - describing the world as how it appears from an a-scientific viewpoint, not in terms of how its component processes can be scientifically explained - and omit facets of the natural world which were not familiar to the Jews (like plankton and pulsars). They aren't even just-so stories. Like how the Lamarckians used to describe how the giraffe got its long neck - every generation of giraffe stretching a bit higher.

In that story, one sees how the giraffe's long neck is a logical conclusion of the giraffes' sequential actions, at least within the reality of the story. But the creation and origins accounts don't even go that far. We see that God makes man in His image, but that doesn't account for why man has two arms instead of four; or we see God setting the rainbow as a sign, but it doesn't follow logically from the rainbow being a sign of God that it should have seven colors or be a semicircular arc in the sky (or even that it should have a pot of gold at the end).

Genesis simply doesn't explain how things came about. In fact, Genesis 1 reduces from an explanatory standpoint to:

God said, "Let there be X"
and poof!
God created X
[and named it]
(repeat as needed until universe is complete)

If God wanted to explain how He made the universe I'm sure He would have done far better (and wouldn't have left the Israelites decades behind their neighbours in terms of technology). But as an explanation that the universe was indeed made by God, it's the most direct and understandable statement I can imagine.

 

[pastorkevin73]

It seems that all Creationist arguments come back to believing that Genesis is literally the word of God.



But if you examine Genesis it is deeply rooted in Mesopotamian folklore. The flood story for example bears a strong resemblance to the Babylonian story Gilgamesh.

I suggest you do some homework on this. Genesis is not folklore. You will need to have some solid understanding Hebrew to get a true understanding about this.

The Gilgamesh arguement is pretty week. So the stories are similar. No big deal. Actually I think that this points to there be validaty that there was a flood. Scientist agree that there was at least a localize flood which cover a large mass of land (I can't recall the exact mass proposed to be covered).

 

[shernren]

I suggest you do some homework on this. Genesis is not folklore. You will need to have some solid understanding Hebrew to get a true understanding about this.

This reminds me of something I learned from a lit lecturer who is really passionate about Old and Middle English. Guess where the word "lore" came from?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=lore
O.E. lar "learning, what is taught, knowledge, doctrine," from P.Gmc. *laizo (O.H.G. lera, O.Fris. lare, Du. leer, Ger. Lehre), from *lais- (see learn).

(emphasis in bold added)

The Bible is the definitive "lore". If modern society doesn't think lore is worth anything, then that's modern society's loss, not the Bible's.

 

[RightWingGirl]

What discounts the possibility that both are based on a real event, a world-wide flood?

(Now your answer will be that science does not allow for a world-wide flood. But enormous amounts of evidence can be interpreted to verify a world-wide flood, as I do. While this same evidence can be interpreted to show millions of years, as you do, it is not conclusive for either view. If it were we would probably not be on this forum.)
Looking just at the two accounts, and at thousands of other accounts of a world wide flood, what makes it improbable that they did not all come from a single event?

 

[steen]

What discounts the possibility that both are based on a real event, a world-wide flood?

(Now your answer will be that science does not allow for a world-wide flood. But enormous amounts of evidence can be interpreted to verify a world-wide flood, as I do.

Actually no. Only if you ignore even more data and construe the remaining in a way not congruent with the science it came from. Such quote-mining is not evidence of anything other than the sophistry needed to make the point attempted.

 

[gluadys]

(Now your answer will be that science does not allow for a world-wide flood. But enormous amounts of evidence can be interpreted to verify a world-wide flood, as I do. While this same evidence can be interpreted to show millions of years, as you do, it is not conclusive for either view. If it were we would probably not be on this forum.)

Actually, it is very conclusive. A global flood does not begin to account for the geological evidence and is often contradicted by the geological evidence. No one has successfully shown how the geological record could have been created by a global flood.

Any alleged interpretation to the contrary is assembled form distortion, omission and deception, not valid interpretation.

 

[chaoschristian]

Looking just at the two accounts, and at thousands of other accounts of a world wide flood, what makes it improbable that they did not all come from a single event?

Here is a reference to flood stories. This provides you with stories from various cultures around the world. Note that not all of these stories represent flood mythologies. Some are simply tales.

Too many cultures from outside of the ANE region do not have universal flood mythologies for the existance of these stories to be used as evidence for a global flood as accounted for in Genesis.

 

[Lilandra]

I suggest you do some homework on this. Genesis is not folklore. You will need to have some solid understanding Hebrew to get a true understanding about this.

Really do you have a solid understanding of Hebrew?

If you read the Jewish Pseudogrippa the resemblance to folklore is unmistakable. The Eden story has more characters like Lilith,the first woman. Lilith, the mother of monsters, is still used to frighten Jewish children to this day.

The Gilgamesh arguement is pretty week. So the stories are similar. No big deal. Actually I think that this points to there be validaty that there was a flood. Scientist agree that there was at least a localize flood which cover a large mass of land (I can't recall the exact mass proposed to be covered).

Yes there is evidence for a localized flood. Not a global one as Genesis says.

 

[Lilandra]

What discounts the possibility that both are based on a real event, a world-wide flood?

(Now your answer will be that science does not allow for a world-wide flood. But enormous amounts of evidence can be interpreted to verify a world-wide flood, as I do.

Please provide evidence of a world wide flood in your own words.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Really do you have a solid understanding of Hebrew?

If you read the Jewish Pseudogrippa the resemblance to folklore is unmistakable. The Eden story has more characters like Lilith,the first woman. Lilith, the mother of monsters, is still used to frighten Jewish children to this day.


Yes there is evidence for a localized flood. Not a global one as Genesis says.

You are know speaking of things outside of scripture. First Lilith was not the first woman. Reread Genesis 1. The only reference to Lilith is scripture is Isa 34:14 where she is noted as a night demon who haunts in the wilderness of Edom. Lilith obviously frightens children (just not only Jewish) because she is a demon. That is what demons do; they attempt to torment and terrorize.

Also the Jewish Pseudogrippa has no bearing on scripture. The JP is not the inspired Word of God.

Really do you have a solid understanding of Hebrew?

By the way, did you miss it? I am a pastor.

 

[Lilandra]

You are know speaking of things outside of scripture. First Lilith was not the first woman. Reread Genesis 1. The only reference to Lilith is scripture is Isa 34:14 where she is noted as a night demon who haunts in the wilderness of Edom. Lilith obviously frightens children (just not only Jewish) because she is a demon. That is what demons do; they attempt to torment and terrorize.

Lilith's folktale is told within the context that she was the first woman. She was banished from Eden because she wanted to be Adam's equal. That is why it is said that she takes revenge on Eve's children.

Also the Jewish Pseudogrippa has no bearing on scripture. The JP is not the inspired Word of God.

The JP is a collection of folktales told by the Hebrews. The stories in Genesis dominate it.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Lilith's folktale is told within the context that she was the first woman. She was banished from Eden because she wanted to be Adam's equal. That is why it is said that she takes revenge on Eve's children.

The JP is a collection of folktales told by the Hebrews. The stories in Genesis dominate it.

The Jews never considered the Jewish Pseudogrippa to be scripture. They only considered the Torah, Prophets and Psalms to be scripture. For the Jews the Pseudogrippa held no weight. That is why it is the Pseudogrippa.

The belief of Lilith being the first woman is a Wiccan idea, not a Jewish one.

The Pseudogrippa and the idea of Lilith are not supported by scripture.

 

[Lilandra]

The Jews never considered the Jewish Pseudogrippa to be scripture. They only considered the Torah, Prophets and Psalms to be scripture. For the Jews the Pseudogrippa held no weight. That is why it is the Pseudogrippa.

The belief of Lilith being the first woman is a Wiccan idea, not a Jewish one.

The Pseudogrippa and the idea of Lilith are not supported by scripture.

Lilith is mentioned in Scripture.

<H2>Isaiah 34:14f

• Wildcats shall meet with hyenas,
  goat-demons shall call to each other;
  there too Lilith shall repose,
  and find a place to rest.
  There shall the owl nest
  and lay and hatch and brood in its shadow

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/lilith.html</H2>So unless some ancient Hebrews were Wiccans, your claim has no merit. Also, her mention in Isaiah shows that the the folklore collected in the JP was circulated and taken seriously by the Jews.
Not surprisingly Lilith is also mentioned in Gilgamesh, a story that predates the Hebrew tradition.

After ten years, the tree had matured.
But in the meantime, she found to her dismay
that her hopes could not be fulfilled.
because during that time
a dragon had built its nest at the foot of the tree
the Zu-bird was raising its young in the crown,
and the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle.

 

[pastorkevin73]

Lilith is mentioned in Scripture.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/Lilith/lilith.html</H2>So unless some ancient Hebrews were Wiccans, your claim has no merit. Also, her mention in Isaiah shows that the the folklore collected in the JP was circulated and taken seriously by the Jews.
Not surprisingly Lilith is also mentioned in Gilgamesh, a story that predates the Hebrew tradition.

I did mention that Lilith is mentioned in Isaiah 34:14. However, not in the context you mean. Isaiah does not refer to her as the first woman. Besides it doesn't matter what folklore says, that matters is what scripture says. Eve was the first woman not Lilith. This is no sciptural proof to support Lilith as the first woman. Read Isaiah 34 and you will see how Lilith is refered to. Beyond that to continue this conversation would be a waste of time because you are using week information and refuse to listen to what the scriptures say.

 

[Lilandra]

I did mention that Lilith is mentioned in Isaiah 34:14. However, not in the context you mean. Isaiah does not refer to her as the first woman. Besides it doesn't matter what folklore says, that matters is what scripture says. Eve was the first woman not Lilith. This is no sciptural proof to support Lilith as the first woman.

There are folk traditions to support the story. Like sometimes parents would wait to cut male babies hair to fool Lilth into thinking they were girls.

Read Isaiah 34 and you will see how Lilith is refered to. Beyond that to continue this conversation would be a waste of time because you are using week information and refuse to listen to what the scriptures say.

I did that she is mentioned at all proves my point that the Hebrews took her seriously. Jesus referred to books that are not in the canon. I have established that Hebrew mythology has precursors in Mesopotamian mythology.

You don't seem to have an answer for that. Correct me if I am wrong.