Evidence Genesis is just a fable

[Mallon]

I have no reason to deny Genesis 1 - 3 as anything but a mostly literal account.

Out of curiosity, if Genesis 1-3 was NOT a literal and historical account, what cues would you look for?

 

[Melethiel]

Hades comes from Greek mythology, so I guess hell is not real.

Only "Hades" as it is used in the new testament is not referring to the Greek concept of Hades (or to hell, for that matter - that concept comes from Revelation), but rather to Sheol, which is nothing more than the state of death. The Greek-speaking Jews simply adopted the term.

 

[LexiLou]

Ugh, not enough posts yet to post a link. Mail me if you would like one.

Jewish scholars believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are a poem. It is not intended to be taken literally. The Bible must be read in the context of the culture of which it was written by and about.

Question: Why do people make God into someone so small that he is akin to a magic genie who crosses his arms, blinks, and it all appears without a single thought.

I would far rather worship a God who has been in control for 14.5 billion years than a mere 6000. A 6000 year old God does not sound very stable or reliable.

 

[Mallon]

Question: Why do people make God into someone so small that he is akin to a magic genie who crosses his arms, blinks, and it all appears without a single thought.

One of the pitfalls of the Enlightenment, I suppose.

 

[LexiLou]

One of the pitfalls of the Enlightenment, I suppose.

Aha!

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Gosh I must really be dull. I was sure that ER was being facetious.

It's honestly the same argument that I use for those who would claim to wrap evolution around the creation; those who deny a world wide flood; those who deny that God would have ever given approval of the wars and killing required for His people to possess the land that He had promised on oath to Abraham; those who would deny that God really miraculously parted a deep sea to save His people and then destroy all of the pursuing army of Egypt; those who would deny any possibility that the sun could actually stand in one place in the sky for nearly a whole day.
To all of them I beg the same question. If we begin to throw out stuff that we just don't understand or refuse to believe, where do we stop. Who gets to determine what really should be thrown out or 'believed' as myth and story and what should be 'believed' unto salvation? Why, if none of the other miracles could possibly be true, should we have any faith that the miracle of God's' Savior of the world is true?

Who gets to enlighten all of us as to what are true real-time, real-life events in the Scriptures and what are the myths of the Scriptures. Is it really just the stuff that I personally might not be able to understand how God could have done such a thing. Because I can't see how God could possibly have parted a sea that would allow His people to pass through and then swallow up all of the Egyptian army, am I to then make the claim that that account isn't a real life event. Because I can't explain or understand how in the world God could have flooded the entire earth to a depth of at least 20' at the highest mountain am I free then to teach that this is just a parable.

Well, I can't understand or explain how a virgin woman 2000 years ago came up pregnant without having had any sexual relations with a man, so am I free then to teach that the virgin birth is just a myth to 'teach' us some way of God that may or may not lead to any eternal life that the Scriptures speak of. I'm 55 years old and I have never seen a dead man walking and quite frankly can't understand or explain how it could ever possibly happen, I mean look, the moment you die your organs and cells begin to break down for lack of oxygen and nutrients which the blood that no longer flows through the veins to all the cells of the body used to provide. How in the world would it be possible for a man dead three days in a tomb to get up and walk out of there. Oh, of course, it's a myth. There's some nugget of information and revelation that I should gain from such a myth, but no promise of eternal life, cause it just didn't happen and so we really have no 'proof' that God can raise anyone from the dead.

See, that's how is works. Of course, I don't have to understand or explain how God did any of the things that the Scriptures tell us that He did. I just have to believe on faith that He did... and I do!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Hupomone10]

I would like to see some evidence that shows that Genesis is nothing but a fable or myth.

So, I guess there's really not that much out there about Genesis 1-11 being a myth, or just not much that anyone here really knows about.

I wanted to read something from that perspective just to see how they came up with the conclusion that it is a myth or a 'different genre of literature.'

The statement "Jewish scholars believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are a poem" just doesn't do it for me either. For it can also be said that Jewish scholars believe the first two chapters of Genesis are literal and inspired by God.

Disappointed,
H.

 

[Fencerguy]

Ugh, not enough posts yet to post a link. Mail me if you would like one.

Jewish scholars believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are a poem. It is not intended to be taken literally. The Bible must be read in the context of the culture of which it was written by and about.

Jewish scholars also believe that the Messiah hasn't come yet....So their authority is questionable from a Christian standpoint anyways...

Question: Why do people make God into someone so small that he is akin to a magic genie who crosses his arms, blinks, and it all appears without a single thought.

I would actually be quite impressed with a dude who can create something as enormously complex as this world/universe just by thinking it.......That doesn't seem to demean God at all.........

I would far rather worship a God who has been in control for 14.5 billion years than a mere 6000. A 6000 year old God does not sound very stable or reliable.

Well, we don't know that God hasn't been around that long.........Its technically only been about 6,000 years since Adam and Eve sinned.......

 

[truewinner]

Hi all,

Gosh I must really be dull. I was sure that ER was being facetious.

It's honestly the same argument that I use for those who would claim to wrap evolution around the creation; those who deny a world wide flood; those who deny that God would have ever given approval of the wars and killing required for His people to possess the land that He had promised on oath to Abraham; those who would deny that God really miraculously parted a deep sea to save His people and then destroy all of the pursuing army of Egypt; those who would deny any possibility that the sun could actually stand in one place in the sky for nearly a whole day.
To all of them I beg the same question. If we begin to throw out stuff that we just don't understand or refuse to believe, where do we stop. Who gets to determine what really should be thrown out or 'believed' as myth and story and what should be 'believed' unto salvation? Why, if none of the other miracles could possibly be true, should we have any faith that the miracle of God's' Savior of the world is true?

Who gets to enlighten all of us as to what are true real-time, real-life events in the Scriptures and what are the myths of the Scriptures. Is it really just the stuff that I personally might not be able to understand how God could have done such a thing. Because I can't see how God could possibly have parted a sea that would allow His people to pass through and then swallow up all of the Egyptian army, am I to then make the claim that that account isn't a real life event. Because I can't explain or understand how in the world God could have flooded the entire earth to a depth of at least 20' at the highest mountain am I free then to teach that this is just a parable.

Well, I can't understand or explain how a virgin woman 2000 years ago came up pregnant without having had any sexual relations with a man, so am I free then to teach that the virgin birth is just a myth to 'teach' us some way of God that may or may not lead to any eternal life that the Scriptures speak of. I'm 55 years old and I have never seen a dead man walking and quite frankly can't understand or explain how it could ever possibly happen, I mean look, the moment you die your organs and cells begin to break down for lack of oxygen and nutrients which the blood that no longer flows through the veins to all the cells of the body used to provide. How in the world would it be possible for a man dead three days in a tomb to get up and walk out of there. Oh, of course, it's a myth. There's some nugget of information and revelation that I should gain from such a myth, but no promise of eternal life, cause it just didn't happen and so we really have no 'proof' that God can raise anyone from the dead.

See, that's how is works. Of course, I don't have to understand or explain how God did any of the things that the Scriptures tell us that He did. I just have to believe on faith that He did... and I do!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I have to agree as well, it is possibly a real slippery slope once you deny a book in the Bible. I too believe that Genesis is a myth, but it is still a book in the Bible that was inspired by God. With that why would God inspire a false creation story?

 

[Tim Myers]

Here's a question.......

Whadda you care anyway??....

 

[CryptoLutheran]

I would like to see some evidence that shows that Genesis is nothing but a fable or myth. It's fine if that is someone's interpretation, but all we have to appeal to is godless science. Isn't it idolatry to take man's opinion (science) and place it above God's Word? Apparently not, to the Christian Darwinists.

Genesis isn't "nothing but a fable or myth", it's Israel's prologue. As such it puts together numerous stories, some of those are mythological (mythology isn't bad, it's one of the many ways which human beings communicate and is an equally valid form in which God's inspired word can take), those early narratives serve a narrative purpose that brings us to Abraham.

That's what Genesis does, it begins with the big picture and increasingly narrows in scope until Israel's children are in Egypt, which is where Exodus picks up at. Adam -> Seth -> Noah -> Shem -> Abraham -> Isaac -> Jacob -> the twelve Patriarchs -> Moses and the Exodus.

No one is placing science above God's word. What evolutionary creationists are doing is taking both God's word seriously along with taking the simple facts of creation seriously. Unless, of course, you'd like to argue that the sky is a dome of water and that the sun, moon and stars orbit Earth.

We also take seriously Augustine's warning against maintaining interpretations of Scripture that ultimately do nothing but make Scripture and Christianity look ignorant for ignorant's sake.

However, the problem is, the rest of scripture can easily be dismissed as stories, myths and fables too. Why stop at Genesis? Why not do the same with the gospels too? Why not dismiss any phrase or expression in the Bible we do not like as a mere myth and "not to be taken literally?" A literal resurrection? Nah. A literal crucifixion? Nope, just a metaphor for us dying to self. A literal Jesus? No. Just a metaphor for the Christ within us all (sounds strikingly New Age to me). A literal God? Nope; just an impersonal energy force, or the Universe itself. Where does it end?

You know very well that hermeneutics don't involve a flat all-or-nothing approach. Unless you want to argue that God is literally a rock or a strong tower or has an arm. Hermeneutics requires taking the Bible seriously, and that means approaching the biblical texts seriously and critically in order to best apprehend what the author is saying.

Your argument here is self-defeating and absurd since virtually nobody takes everything in the Bible literally or allegorical or figurative. Everyone takes into account the complexities and nuances of biblical language and textual context.

If we're going to throw out the foundation of the Bible (Creation, sin, the Fall, the devil as a temptor), where do we stop? Why even bother stopping?

The foundation of the Bible is Jesus Christ.

Also, no one is throwing out creation, the fall, or anything else. This is a matter of hermeneutical interpretation and exegetical application, not believing/disbelieving Scripture. Your argument is moot.

Evolution says there is no need for any supernatural entity to have caused the Big Bang, so why believe in a god at all - let alone the God of Christianity? Is fear of hell that strong? (What if hell's a myth and a metaphor for walking in spiritual darkness?) The list goes on.

Astrophysics doesn't say anything about a supernatural entity either, neither does chemistry, or marine biology, or Einstein's theory of general relativity. One can just as easily say that the theory of gravity says nothing about a super natural entity to be causing the moon to move around the earth's mass, so why believe in a god at all?

The big bang isn't part of evolution. Evolution deals with the adaptive processes of living organisms, the big bang is a theory dealing with the cosmological origins of the universe.

These are questions for the Christian Darwinists I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer to. But then, science has never had the answers for me. I don't worship science. I worship the True God of heaven and earth. Amen.

I don't worship science either. I "worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence." (Athanasian Creed). I believe in one God, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[LexiLou]

So, I guess there's really not that much out there about Genesis 1-11 being a myth, or just not much that anyone here really knows about.

I wanted to read something from that perspective just to see how they came up with the conclusion that it is a myth or a 'different genre of literature.'

The statement "Jewish scholars believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are a poem" just doesn't do it for me either. For it can also be said that Jewish scholars believe the first two chapters of Genesis are literal and inspired by God.

Disappointed,
H.

I wanted to cite my source but I am a noob so it will not let me. Please google Ancient Hebrew Research Center.

 

[LexiLou]

Jewish scholars also believe that the Messiah hasn't come yet....So their authority is questionable from a Christian standpoint anyways...


I would actually be quite impressed with a dude who can create something as enormously complex as this world/universe just by thinking it.......That doesn't seem to demean God at all.........

Jewish authority on the Old Testament, at least on the first five books, shouldn't be questionable.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi all,

Gosh I must really be dull. I was sure that ER was being facetious.

It's honestly the same argument that I use for those who would claim to wrap evolution around the creation;

The difference is you are willing to engage in a discussion

those who deny a world wide flood; those who deny that God would have ever given approval of the wars and killing required for His people to possess the land that He had promised on oath to Abraham; those who would deny that God really miraculously parted a deep sea to save His people and then destroy all of the pursuing army of Egypt; those who would deny any possibility that the sun could actually stand in one place in the sky for nearly a whole day.
To all of them I beg the same question. If we begin to throw out stuff that we just don't understand or refuse to believe, where do we stop.

Doesn't the bible tell us we need wisdom and the Holy Spirit to understand it? That suggests that simplistic approaches that say lets take everything we can literally, and ones that say lets take everything metaphorically are both wrong, and we need wisdom to understand how to interpret each passage we deal with.

Who gets to determine

We do surely. The people of God honestly searching the scriptures, examining the questions that some up and trying to understand what God is saying to us in his word and how he is saying it.

what really should be thrown out or 'believed' as myth and story and what should be 'believed' unto salvation?

This really is a false dicothomy creationists need to get past. Are we throwing out most of Jesus teaching if we 'believe' them as a parables and stories? Can't I believe unto salvation that Jesus bruised the serpent's head and set us free from the curse when he died on the cross, even if the promise in Genesis wasn't literal? Can't I believe unto salvation that Jesus is the Good Shepherd who laid down his life for me his sheep, even if I know the parable of the Good Shepherd is just a story? Of course you do have to believe Jesus really died on the cross and rose again, but only creationists say we have to take that metaphorically too.

Why, if none of the other miracles could possibly be true, should we have any faith that the miracle of God's' Savior of the world is true?

Who gets to enlighten all of us as to what are true real-time, real-life events in the Scriptures and what are the myths of the Scriptures. Is it really just the stuff that I personally might not be able to understand how God could have done such a thing. Because I can't see how God could possibly have parted a sea that would allow His people to pass through and then swallow up all of the Egyptian army, am I to then make the claim that that account isn't a real life event. Because I can't explain or understand how in the world God could have flooded the entire earth to a depth of at least 20' at the highest mountain am I free then to teach that this is just a parable.

There is a difference between not understanding how God could have parted the Red Sea or raised Jesus from the dead, and dealing with solid geological evidence the earth isn't 6000 years old or there wasn't a global flood. The disciples believed Jesus rose from the dead even though they didn't know how God did it and knew it did not happen naturally. However if Peter and John had rushed to the tomb and found solid evidence Jesus was still dead, they would never have believed he rose from the dead. There is a difference between believing things you have not seen and do not understand and believing things you have been shown are simply not true. One is faith the other blind credulity. The hard nosed fishermen Jesus chose as his followers would never have gone in for blind credulity, that is why Peter and John ran to the tomb when Mary told them she had seen Jesus.

It is worth pointing out, that just because there wasn't a global flood, it doesn't mean the flood account was a parable. That is one explanation, but another alternative is that the idea of a global flood simply misunderstands an ancient text talking about a more local event.

Well, I can't understand or explain how a virgin woman 2000 years ago came up pregnant without having had any sexual relations with a man, so am I free then to teach that the virgin birth is just a myth to 'teach' us some way of God that may or may not lead to any eternal life that the Scriptures speak of. I'm 55 years old and I have never seen a dead man walking and quite frankly can't understand or explain how it could ever possibly happen, I mean look, the moment you die your organs and cells begin to break down for lack of oxygen and nutrients which the blood that no longer flows through the veins to all the cells of the body used to provide. How in the world would it be possible for a man dead three days in a tomb to get up and walk out of there. Oh, of course, it's a myth. There's some nugget of information and revelation that I should gain from such a myth, but no promise of eternal life, cause it just didn't happen and so we really have no 'proof' that God can raise anyone from the dead.

See, that's how is works. Of course, I don't have to understand or explain how God did any of the things that the Scriptures tell us that He did. I just have to believe on faith that He did... and I do!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Assyrian]

So, I guess there's really not that much out there about Genesis 1-11 being a myth, or just not much that anyone here really knows about.

Here are a couple of indications the Genesis creation accounts should be understood as a metaphor.

(1) Genesis 2 describes a completely different order of creation to Genesis 1.
(2) Adam is Hebrew for Man or Mankind, which make perfect sense as an Everyman character in a parable describing the creation and fall of the human race.
(3) It is not just Adam's name being 'Man', his wife is called 'Woman'.
(4) Adam is referred to as 'them' Gen 1:26 and Gen 5:2 Male and female he created them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam.
(5) Eve being made from Adam's rib 'flesh of his flesh' is describe as the reason the sexual union makes husband and wife 'one flesh' Gen 2:24. This is an allegorical interpretation of the rib, which is found in the text of Genesis itself.
(6) We have Adam being told to check out the animals to look for a life partner. A wonderful allegorical description of how a man need good women to love cherish, but as a literal preparation for adult life and relationships it is pretty weird, not to say unscriptural.
(7) Being made of dust, or God forming us from clay, is a common biblical metaphor everywhere else in scripture.
(8) There is a talking snake described as a literal snake in Genesis 3 but we are told we are told in Revelation 12:9 & 20:2 the snake was not a beast of the field, but a spiritual being, a fallen angel called Satan.
(9) Our redemption is describe in terms of the redeemer stepping on this snake's head which never happened in the gospel, not literally anyway.
(10) Adam and Eve could have lived forever by from eating from a fruit tree, while Jesus said perishable food cannot give eternal life.
(11) If the Tree of Life was literal it would mean there is another source of everlasting life other than through Jesus and the cross. This does not make sense theologically.
(12) Alternatively, if the Tree of life was allegorical, it would be a beautiful picture of the Cross, 1Pet 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, and of Jesus himself who said he was the true Vine,
(13) Paul tells us he sees Adam as a figure of Christ in Romans 5:14 and through out his epistles interprets Adam and Eve as a picture of marriage or a picture of Christ and the Church.
(14) People back then were very used to parables and metaphors and would launch into extended metaphors without any explanation, the talking trees in Judges 9 or Gen 49:9 Judah is a lion's cub… 14 Issachar is a strong donkey, crouching between the sheepfolds… 27 Benjamin is a ravenous wolf…
(15) Genesis 6 uses a figurative interpretation of the creation of Adam to describe the flood Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will blot out Adam whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them." Adam, if he was literal, would have been dead by the time of the flood.
(16) We have cherubim with a supernatural sword guarding paradise, elsewhere in the bible cherubim are seen around the throne of God, or the holy of holies in the temple, which makes perfect sense if the garden of Eden is actually talking about heaven or is an allegory for the temple (or both since the temple was a picture of heaven).
(17) You find all the imagery from Genesis coming together again in another highly allegorical book, the book of Revelation where you have another husband and wife, the same talking snake, the tree of life planted by a river in the paradise of God (paradise is how the LXX translates 'garden' of Eden).
(18) Nowhere in the bible are the days of Genesis interpreted as literal days.
(19) Genesis 2:4 describes all of creation taking place in a single day.
(20) Genesis 2:17 says Adam would surely die the day he ate the fruit, which did not happen, so either day did not mean a literal day, or the death did not refer to literal physical death.
(21) Exodus 20:11 uses the days of Genesis not to teach a literal six day creation, but as a lesson in Sabbath observance, while Paul goes on to tell us the Sabbath is simply a shadow, an allegorical picture of Christ Col 2:16&17.
(22) In Exodus 31:17 God's seventh day rest is expanded: on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.
This cannot literally mean the God of Israel who neither slumbers nor sleeps was refreshed after a day's rest, however as an anthropomorphism, it is a beautiful metaphor describing God's identification with down trodden workers in the field, the child labourers and migrants workers who are also refreshed after their Sabbath rest Exodus 23:12 Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed. Refreshed literally refers to people who are exhausted getting their breath back. It is not a common word in the bible occurring only three times in the bible, so its occurrence referring to God's rest in Exodus 31:17 a few chapters after it refers to exhausted field workers is not coincidental.
(23) Days in the OT Law began in the evening Lev 23:32 from evening to evening shall you keep your Sabbath. Yet the sabbath, if it is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, was because God set this particular day of the week aside as holy because it is the day he rested during the creation week. The problem is, the days in Genesis, if you take it as seven literal days, all begin in the morning. And there was morning and there was evening the third day - then you go on to the fourth day. So the Sabbath, if it is literally marking the day God set aside as holy at the creation, is out by 12 hours.
(24) Psalm 90:4, a psalm describing the creation, interprets God's days as like a thousand years, which hardly sounds like a literal interpretation of Genesis.
(25) The psalm goes on to interpret key imagery from Genesis Adam being returned to the dust, the flood, in terms of the fleetingness of human life, an allegorical interpretation.
(26) In Hebrews 3&4 God's seventh day rest is interpreted, not as a single day's break at the end of a six day creation, but as an ongoing rest we are to enter 'today' through the gospel.

Now while some of these points show the problems with a literal interpretation, others simply show how Genesis fits better if it is interpreted metaphorically, they are evidence it is a metaphor rather than evidence that it isn't literal.

Disappointed,
H.

Don't be.

 

[Papias]

miamited wrote:

To all of them I beg the same question. If we begin to throw out stuff that we just don't understand or refuse to believe, where do we stop. Who gets to determine what really should be thrown out or 'believed' as myth and story and what should be 'believed' unto salvation?

Right! That's why we shouldn't question the obviously Biblical literal fact that we live on a flat earth, under a hard crystal dome that holds back an ocean, and that animals can talk, and that beautiful women have animals crammed into their eyesockets! I mean, if we throw those out, or see them as "figurative", then where do we stop?

miamited, do you believe we live on a flat earth, etc? If not, then how can you throw out parts of the Bible?

Papias

 

[Melethiel]

I wanted to read something from that perspective just to see how they came up with the conclusion that it is a myth or a 'different genre of literature.'

I guess everybody asking "where do you see this in Genesis" has ignored GratiaCorpusChristi's post, because it explains why we believe that Genesis one is not histgorical in some detail.

 

[LexiLou]

1. It is only Evangelical Christians (and even not all of them) who believe in in a literal 6 day creation. That leaves the majority of Christians who believe in at least a theistic evolution. (Appeal to majority, I realize)
2. The distance of the stars cannot be disputed. Can you explain how it takes millions of years for the light of the stars to reach Earth if the universe is only 6000 years old?

 

[Hupomone10]

Question: Why do people make God into someone so small that he is akin to a magic genie who crosses his arms, blinks, and it all appears without a single thought.

I would far rather worship a God who has been in control for 14.5 billion years than a mere 6000. A 6000 year old God does not sound very stable or reliable.

I would actually be quite impressed with a dude who can create something as enormously complex as this world/universe just by thinking it.......That doesn't seem to demean God at all.........

In the movie "The Wrath of Khan", I remember Dr. McCoy talking about the device developed in Project Genesis that transformed a planet into a habitable environment. His comments were a normal reaction I think by people. He said "in the Genesis myth (McCoy's words) God created the world in 7 days; now Genesis can do it in 7 minutes!" The thought being conveyed was that it was more incredible to do it in the shorter time than the longer, and more scary to him personally.

In answer to the question "Why do people make God into someone so small ..." It would be like asking you "do you still beat your wife?" It is a compound question with a possibly false assumption. The first question must be "have you ever beat your wife?" And if so, "do you still do so?" The first question above must be "does this make God smaller?" and in answer to that, No. I do not accept the idea that it makes God smaller because He can create a universe and can create life rather than letting the process of matter and energy shaped by pure chance take its course. We are making God larger.

A similar analogy would be,
"Which one is a greater doctor: the one who can get rid of someone's cancer gradually over a period of 15 years, or one who can remove the cancer in one operation?

I would far rather worship a God who has been in control for 14.5 billion years than a mere 6000.

This sounds good, but it is in fact worshiping an idea about God instead of worshiping God. When we put the conditions on God as to what He is and worship that picture, we are simply practicing idol worship. We don't get to put the conditions on God; He puts the conditions on the creations He has created. We would be better off just to study the actual primary document of any religion, study it in its pure form and accept or reject God as presented there instead of making up our own view of their God and saying we are worshiping that God. The God of the pure religion might be the true God; the God I fashion in my mind is certainly not.

The person who says "I cannot worship a God who did it by evolution" is missing the point. The person who says "I cannot worship a God who did it by design in a short period of time" is also missing the point.

 

[Dark_Lite]

1. The distance of the stars cannot be disputed. Can you explain how it takes millions of years for the light of the stars to reach Earth if the universe is only 6000 years old?

Oh, that's easy. All you have to do is throw out uniformitarianism and/or posit the Omphalos hypothesis. All the other consequences of doing such don't matter, of course.