Christian belief on Origins as per the Bible

[Job 33:6]

Not sure where you got that definition.
heliocentrism, a cosmological model in which the Sun is assumed to lie at or near a central point (e.g., of the solar system or of the universe) while the Earth and other bodies revolve around it.
heliocentrism | Definition, History, & Facts

I would say that, the authors of Genesis, given that they weren't familiar with things beyond geocentrism, suggests that their understanding of creation was limited in perspective. The authors of Genesis, in short, did not have Godly knowledge of creation. And we see that in Genesis with adjectives that suggest belief in a solid dome over the land.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...sQFnoECAUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw39YMhswlVVBzqeeJbEajXM
The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point - Articles

And there's nothing to suggest that God intended to convey a scientifically modern literal message given that the perception of the ancient Israelites, who were inspired by God, was not scientifically modern and literally true, ie there was no solid dome in the sky.

And with this understanding in mind, when creation days are described, we should be skeptical of the idea that creation actually was made in 6 24-hour days, just as we should be skeptical of the idea that creation had a solid dome over it. Yet both concepts are described in Genesis and the OT nonetheless.

In the end, Genesis simply isn't a scientifically literal modern text. And Yom in Genesis was never intended by God to actually convey a scientifically modern and literal 24 hour day as truth. No more did God ever intend to convey that there was a solid dome over the land either. Rather these were remnants of the culture of the people of that time, (much like dozens of other cultures of that time that also believed that a solid dome/raqia rested over earth), creeping into God's word. Much like the ancient Hebrews use of the word "cubit". There's nothing particularly divine about a cubit, it's not like God ordained this form of measurement for all of creation, rather it's an artifact of the culture of the people of that time that has made it's way into God's breathed Word.

And this is, beyond a grand conspiracy, the only explanation for why YECism is at such odds with every single field of modern science known to mankind. This is why YECism is at such odds with biblical scholarship these days as well. Christian Biblical scholars and Christian scientists are now aligned and in agreement on how God created the universe. But some YEC groups of Christianity would rather conclude that this synchronization of Christianity and Science and all these experts backing each, are all just wrong.

 

[lifepsyop]

And there's nothing to suggest that God intended to convey a scientifically modern literal message given that the perception of the ancient Israelites, who were inspired by God, was not scientifically modern and literally true, ie there was no solid dome in the sky.

And with this understanding in mind, when creation days are described, we should be skeptical of the idea that creation actually was made in 6 24-hour days, just as we should be skeptical of the idea that creation had a solid dome over it. Yet both concepts are described in Genesis and the OT nonetheless.

You're comparing an ambiguous interpretation of a couple verses to a detailed account containing genealogy of Noah's lineage and a covenant made between man and God. God's covenant is a promise to never again destroy the whole earth with a flood.

I think once you begin mythologizing covenants, you've basically given yourself license to do whatever you want with scripture.

In the end, Genesis simply isn't a scientifically literal modern text.

Here is the discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah, published just last year:

A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Strange that a mythological event imagined by the authors of Genesis ends up being confirmed scientifically with such close parallel to the Biblical account.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Act

You're comparing an ambiguous interpretation of a couple verses to a detailed account containing genealogy of Noah's lineage and a covenant made between man and God. God's covenant is a promise to never again destroy the whole earth with a flood.

I think once you begin mythologizing covenants, you've basically given yourself license to do whatever you want with scripture.





Here is the discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah, published just last year:

A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Strange that a mythological event imagined by the authors of Genesis ends up being confirmed scientifically with such close parallel to the Biblical account.

You may want to reconsider that.

How is the evidence there showing a supernatural event versus a natural disaster that was incorporated into the Bible?

 

[lifepsyop]

Act


You may want to reconsider that.

How is the evidence there showing a supernatural event versus a natural disaster that was incorporated into the Bible?

You could say the same for the global flood of Genesis if you really wanted to. You could deny the flood's divine origin (the judgment and wrath of God) and simply assert that it was an unintentional natural disaster. There is always this freedom to doubt.

The point is that these are real catastrophic events that occurred on the earth. The Sodom and Gomorrah discovery is evidence that some of the most amazing accounts of Genesis were in fact real world events, down to some fairly specific details... not merely symbolic or metaphorical stories or myths as old-earth believers wish to assert.

Old-Earth believers are in the awkward position of claiming some of Genesis is real and some isn't. Despite the fact that the same genealogy connects through the whole book. Jesus himself warns of judgment that will parallel Sodom and Gomorrah, and the worldwide flood of Noah.

It is enlightenment philosophy that leads so many Christians away from just believing what the word of God says. Genesis is clearly an historical account of things that happened on the Earth, and is intended to be read in that way. Our choice is to believe men or believe God.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

You could say the same for the global flood of Genesis if you really wanted to. You could deny the flood's divine origin (the judgment and wrath of God) and simply assert that it was an unintentional natural disaster. There is always this freedom to doubt.

The point is that these are real catastrophic events that occurred on the earth. The Sodom and Gomorrah discovery is evidence that some of the most amazing accounts of Genesis were in fact real world events, down to some fairly specific details... not merely symbolic or metaphorical stories or myths as old-earth believers wish to assert.

Old-Earth believers are in the awkward position of claiming some of Genesis is real and some isn't. Despite the fact that the same genealogy connects through the whole book. Jesus himself warns of judgment that will parallel Sodom and Gomorrah, and the worldwide flood of Noah.

It is enlightenment philosophy that leads so many Christians away from just believing what the word of God says. Genesis is clearly an historical account of things that happened on the Earth, and is intended to be read in that way. Our choice is to believe men or believe God.

There was never a global flood though. Zero scientific and historical evidence for it. The flood story is found within the mythological chapters of genesis 1-11.

 

[lifepsyop]

There was never a global flood though. Zero scientific and historical evidence for it. The flood story is found within the mythological chapters of genesis 1-11.

God's word says there was a global flood, and there is actually overwhelming evidence of it. This evidence is rejected on philosophical grounds, i.e. it cannot be accommodated into an old-earth evolutionary worldview so it must be rejected, in principle.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

God's word says there was a global flood, and there is actually overwhelming evidence of it. This evidence is rejected on philosophical grounds, i.e. it cannot be accommodated into an old-earth evolutionary worldview so it must be rejected, in principle.

A few things.

Yahweh’s Bible does not say there ever was a flood. The scriptures tells a story through the platform of a myth that contains a flood. Just like the Bible does not say multi headed breathing dragons in the sea exists but contains fictional tales and poems about them such as genesis 1 and psalms 74.

Secondly , contrary to uneducated YEC propaganda, there is zero evidence global floods. If there was, more than 0.01% of scientists would believe in it. Young earth creationist believe in a global flood not because of science, but bad theology and a lack of scientific education. Also the evidence is not silent. It refutes a worldwide flood.I’m willing to dedicate 1-2 comments to this subject with a handful of people. Then I stop because I don’t tutor for free.

 

[lifepsyop]

A few things.

Yahweh’s Bible does not say there ever was a flood. The scriptures tells a story through the platform of a myth that contains a flood. Just like the Bible does not say multi headed breathing dragons in the sea exists but contains fictional tales and poems about them such as genesis 1 and psalms 74.

The Bible clearly says there was a worldwide flood. It is one of the most foundational events of the Bible. Jesus compares these days of Noah to the worldwide judgment coming upon the earth in the future.

The idea of Genesis being mythology doesn't square with Genesis 19's specific account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah being firmly rooted in actual history.
A Tunguska sized airburst destroyed Tall el-Hammam a Middle Bronze Age city in the Jordan Valley near the Dead Sea | Scientific Reports (nature.com)

Genesis is clearly something more than myth if it is describing historically accurate events.

The mythology interpretation is just completely wrong.


The Psalms are literally poetry. They are songs meant to evoke the spiritual glory of God, things that are always true at all times. God is always saving, God is always Lord over all creation. What makes this truth so powerful is that it manifests itself in his specific works on the earth in actual historical events that we are given a genealogical record of. His Word rules over all.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

So I suggest carefully reading posts. Repeatedly, to a redundant level, it’s been mentioned that genesis 1-11 is the mythological account. As soon as you get to chapter 12, you’ll notice the writing style completely changes.

so the flood is mentioned in chapters 6-9. That’s within the clearly mythological narratives.

i highly suggest checking this book out. It’s by a Old Testament professor. “ The Lost World of the Flood “ by John Walton. Also the chapters on genesis 1-11 in “ Commentary on the Torah “ by Richard Friedman.

Listen there really is a bunch of work out there. I’ve read over 50 books just on genesis itself including dozens of commentaries. This is the scholarly consensus. Those books are full of cited sources ranging back to the first century and some are even written by literary professors.

In addition to that all science undermines a global flood. If you think science is supporting a global flood, I again suggest picking up books written by actual experts. Out of hundreds of thousands of science books that talk about geological periods and layers, and out of 8,000,000 scientists worldwide including the ones who are Christians less than 0.01 rejects a 4+ billion year old earth or accepts a global flood.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

Also you mentioned the genealogies of the Bible. Again, I have to ask, did you ever read even a single book dedicated to genealogy records in the Bible , let alone a handful? You don’t have answer. It’s rhetorical. I already know the answer. If you pick some up you’ll quickly learn about compressed genealogies and symbolic kingship genealogies.

what are biblical genealogies and what do they do? (guest series by Denis Lamoureux)

A Quick Word About How Genealogies in the Bible Aren’t “History"

you can even read a “ counter argument “ here but hopefully you’ll read them all and compare the in-depth info to what other scholars have to say.

Response to Peter Enns’s Attack on Biblical Creation

The books I mentioned earlier plus the ones by Pete Enns really dig into genealogies.

But one of my favorite works on this subject is
The Genealogies in Genesis: Part I - Articles

The Genealogies in Genesis: Part II - Articles

Studying biblical genealogies is actually one of my favorite pastimes.

 

[lifepsyop]

So I suggest carefully reading posts. Repeatedly, to a redundant level, it’s been mentioned that genesis 1-11 is the mythological account. As soon as you get to chapter 12, you’ll notice the writing style completely changes.

so the flood is mentioned in chapters 6-9. That’s within the clearly mythological narratives.

i highly suggest checking this book out. It’s by a Old Testament professor. “ The Lost World of the Flood “ by John Walton. Also the chapters on genesis 1-11 in “ Commentary on the Torah “ by Richard Friedman.

Listen there really is a bunch of work out there. I’ve read over 50 books just on genesis itself including dozens of commentaries. This is the scholarly consensus. Those books are full of cited sources ranging back to the first century and some are even written by literary professors.

In addition to that all science undermines a global flood. If you think science is supporting a global flood, I again suggest picking up books written by actual experts. Out of hundreds of thousands of science books that talk about geological periods and layers, and out of 8,000,000 scientists worldwide including the ones who are Christians less than 0.01 rejects a 4+ billion year old earth or accepts a global flood.

You seem to imply here that real Biblical history gets going with Abraham in Genesis 12, but you do realize that it is also "scholarly consensus" that a great deal of the rest of the Torah is mythology, that there was no Exodus... that the conquest of Canaan in Joshua never actually happened, etc. etc. If your alignment is with scholarly consensus, then this is where you end up. You realize this, no?

(There is of course, tons of evidence for the Exodus, Wilderness route, and Conquest, but academia doesn't want to see it.)


I would suggest studying some history of enlightenment philosophy. It doesn't matter how many millions of scientists you want to add in there if they're all approaching the data with the same governing ideology.

Ask yourself, why was it so hard for the scholarly consensus to see the evidence of geological catastrophism in the early 20th century? The evidence was there in abundance, (e.g. Missoula Floods) but geologists did not want to see it because such large-scale catastrophism contradicted the prevailing ideological commitment to uniformity, (the present as key to the past), and this was only a relatively minor challenge to their worldview that did not even threaten the evolutionary time scale. Scientific institutions operate downstream from ideology.

 

[SkovandOfMitzae]

You seem to imply here that real Biblical history gets going with Abraham in Genesis 12, but you do realize that it is also "scholarly consensus" that a great deal of the rest of the Torah is mythology, that there was no Exodus... that the conquest of Canaan in Joshua never actually happened, etc. etc. If your alignment is with scholarly consensus, then this is where you end up. You realize this, no?

(There is of course, tons of evidence for the Exodus, Wilderness route, and Conquest, but academia doesn't want to see it.)


I would suggest studying some history of enlightenment philosophy. It doesn't matter how many millions of scientists you want to add in there if they're all approaching the data with the same governing ideology.

Ask yourself, why was it so hard for the scholarly consensus to see the evidence of geological catastrophism in the early 20th century? The evidence was there in abundance, (e.g. Missoula Floods) but geologists did not want to see it because such large-scale catastrophism contradicted the prevailing ideological commitment to uniformity, (the present as key to the past), and this was only a relatively minor challenge to their worldview that did not even threaten the evolutionary time scale. Scientific institutions operate downstream from ideology.

I already accept the bulk of what you wrote. The entire Bible is interwoven with multiple genre. Such as there is no evidence the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. If they were, there is no historical evidence of it. I doubt it happened and is part mythos mixed with maybe some lost history and plenty of hyperbolic language. I definitely don’t believe there was an actual conquest. For a fact when I have time I’ll go through why I think I that was simply peptic war language, much like how hell is symbolism for death. I support conditional immortality. Generally where the bulk of scientists, theologians and historians land is where you’ll find me firmly planted. Though not always. I’ve never heard of scholars denying ice age floods such as that. Just that they were not part of a global flood. There was never a global flood. It’s scientifically impossible and sort of the genesis myths.

 

[timothyu]

And we see that in Genesis with adjectives that suggest belief in a solid dome over the land.

Ant farm

 

[lifepsyop]

I already accept the bulk of what you wrote. The entire Bible is interwoven with multiple genre. Such as there is no evidence the Jews were enslaved by the Egyptians. If they were, there is no historical evidence of it. I doubt it happened and is part mythos mixed with maybe some lost history and plenty of hyperbolic language. I definitely don’t believe there was an actual conquest. For a fact when I have time I’ll go through why I think I that was simply peptic war language, much like how hell is symbolism for death. I support conditional immortality. Generally where the bulk of scientists, theologians and historians land is where you’ll find me firmly planted. Though not always.

Yes, the Bible is interwoven with multiple genres. As the source of all genre to begin with, it demonstrates genre to magisterial effect. God uses historical event itself to create prophetic symbolism. He tells the story of his people being saved from death ultimately, by historically saving them from enslavement in Egypt. God paints promise-shaped patterns with history. When you're the author of all creation you can do things like this.

There is evidence of the Exodus, Israel's wilderness route, and the Conquest, notably the fall of Jericho.

Scholarly consensus also said the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was mythological up until the site was discovered a few years ago. Consensus is routinely wrong and almost always driven by ideology.

I’ve never heard of scholars denying ice age floods such as that. Just that they were not part of a global flood.

Well read up on it then if you're interested: The Missoula Floods Controversy.

There was never a global flood. It’s scientifically impossible and sort of the genesis myths.

Someday we will realize that the reason there are global flood "myths" found in virtually every ancient culture around the world is because it actually happened. There is so much evidence staring us in the face, that we just throw away because we don't like what it's showing us.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ant farm

Genesis for Normal People