Im confused about the "genesis" Sumerian, Epics of Gilgamesh, stuff

[Vance]

Biliskner, that quote from Lewis was not in any way a rejection of evolution. It is a rejection of it all happening by accident. In fact, it is implied right in the quote that he accepts that the process of evolution happened, but NOT by accident. But more appropos to this thread, what do you think about his position on the creation stories deriving out of earlier Sumerian myth?

 

[Biliskner]

Biliskner, that quote from Lewis was not in any way a rejection of evolution. It is a rejection of it all happening by accident. In fact, it is implied right in the quote that he accepts that the process of evolution happened, but NOT by accident. But more appropos to this thread, what do you think about his position on the creation stories deriving out of earlier Sumerian myth?

i answered the first q in another thread.

i can say that the other 'nations' copied the Israelite's text. why does it have to be the other way?

that's like arguing that christians copied muslims in the OT/NT.

 

[gluadys]

Genesis says nothing about the Earth being motionless at the centre of the universe. Please don't confuse the general population with cut and paste facts from Scripture to turn them towards TE. If they want to be a TE, let it be based on your doctrine of the Origins World, not on what you think what literally was taken from Genesis (or for this matter, was NOT taken from Genesis.)

The post topic is "Im confused about genesis" (emphasis added.)

Thank You.

Not in the form of an actual sentence saying "the earth stands motionless at the centre of the universe", true. But Genesis 1 makes no sense unless that is the case.

 

[gluadys]

[/list] if anything, Genesis IS THE Book of the Bible. Without it, how can you possibly understand the NEED for Christ dying for your sins ?!?!????!! Or even WHY He died?!?!?!??!?! (c.f. ROMANS 5)

Isn't the fact of sin sufficient to show the need for redemption from sin?

 

[SBG]

If Genesis wasn't included in the Bible, wouldn't you be a bit confused by the references made to Genesis throughout the Bible?

 

[gluadys]

so that makes them ... mmm... not YECs? again historically incorrect (your logic skips a few steps and i've infered what you meant). These dudes were YECs, as we now call it....

Galileo was not. I haven't found the quote I want on line, so will have to break out my print resources to find it. But it is in reference to his observations of marine fossils in Italy's mountainous regions. He concluded from these observations that they could not have been placed there by a flood and therefore there must have been a change in the positioning of land and sea so that what had once been sea-bed was now mountainous.

Here are some other pertinent quotes from Galileo that I found while browsing;


In his "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina" the following statements appear within three consecutive paragraphs (quoted from Stillman Drake's Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Doubleday Anchor, 1957).

These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities of the common people, who are rude and unlearned, For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise ex0ositors should produce the true senses of such passages....

This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations; ...

. , . nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words.

Somewhat farther along Galileo quotes with approval Pererius Genesis.

We must also take heed, in handling the doctrine of Moses, that we altogether avoid saying positively and confidently anything which contradicts manifest experiences and the reasoning of philosophy or the other sciences. For since every truth is in agreement with all other truth, the truth of Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the solid reasons and experiences of human knowledge.

 

[gluadys]

If Genesis wasn't included in the Bible, wouldn't you be a bit confused by the references made to Genesis throughout the Bible?

No more than you are confused by other biblical references to non-biblical texts such as the Book of Jasher and the Book of Enoch.

 

[Vance]

I think Jesus quotes from a couple of non-Biblical texts, IIRC.

 

[PaladinValer]

Genesis IS "the fellowship of the ring"

And you missed the point completely.

You don't begin to read something before you understand the background of the text.

You don't read Genesis under you understand the background behind it, which would include a understanding of ancient Hebrew cosmology.

if anything, Genesis IS THE Book of the Bible. Without it, how can you possibly understand the NEED for Christ dying for your sins ?!?!????!! Or even WHY He died?!?!?!??!?! (c.f. ROMANS 5)

And yet another YEC assumes falsely that TEs reject the theology of Genesis simply because we don't take it literally.

You probably also falsely assume TEs don't believe in Adam and Eve either

 

[Biliskner]

And yet another YEC assumes falsely that TEs reject the theology of Genesis simply because we don't take it literally.

You probably also falsely assume TEs don't believe in Adam and Eve either

You take it allegorically when the text says "day", yet in the very same text you take the persons of Adam and Eve literally?
I don't need to explain the inconsistencies of your reading of Scripture of that one... surely.

Your evolution worldview disproves Adam and Eve, I assume nothing.
If you're a TE, Adam and Eve's predecessors are apes.
"MY" Adam and Eve have NO predecessors, Adam's "predecessor" is the dust of the Earth and Eve is the bones and flesh of Adam IE: literal understanding of GENESIS.

Now point out where I'm wrong in your TE's line of logic...
And enlighten me on your theology of how sin and death entered the world ("for the wages of sin IS death" - ie: one is not independent of the other as I've heard some try to argue.) - your TE logic disproves that "death entered into the world through one man" because your ape-ancestor-of-Adam must've die to spawn the offspring "Adam"
(as you can see I'm having trouble comprehending this new way of 'exegesis' - or non-exegesis as the case so rightly is.)

 

[Biliskner]

And you missed the point completely.

You don't begin to read something before you understand the background of the text.

You don't read Genesis under you understand the background behind it, which would include a understanding of ancient Hebrew cosmology.

i don't understand your argument (if there even is one.)

but i will say that to you: "don't hold onto the science of today too tightly my friend", we've seen scientific paradigms come and scientific paradigms go, and you can hold your breath that we will keep seeing them come, and seeing them go.

oh, as a side note, ever heard of the Modern Laplacian Theory (MLPT)? It is the Laplacian Theory revamped, and is soon going to replace the Disc Model and I'm very excited about it. It's predictive power is 100000x better than DM (which is not hard since DM says moons around planets are "anomolies") and the catch... wait for it... MLPT requires a rapid formation of the Solar System, whereas DM requires millions of years.
bye bye long-age-universe theory.

 

[Biliskner]

Not in the form of an actual sentence saying "the earth stands motionless at the centre of the universe", true. But Genesis 1 makes no sense unless that is the case.

at your current post, your argument holds air.
quote Scripture, please.

*edit: and expound, of course...

 

[Biliskner]

Isn't the fact of sin sufficient to show the need for redemption from sin?

what facts of sin?
pretend i'm a card carrying paygan who's had sex all his life with whoever he has wanted and killed people who he didn't like for money (IE: Collatoral, with tom cruise).

now explain to me how i need to repent from my sins.
and that there is infact redemption from sins.

you'll find that without the Genesis block, it's going to be hard.
but if you're willing to give it a go, i'm listening.

 

[Biliskner]

Galileo was not. I haven't found the quote I want on line, so will have to break out my print resources to find it. But it is in reference to his observations of marine fossils in Italy's mountainous regions. He concluded from these observations that they could not have been placed there by a flood and therefore there must have been a change in the positioning of land and sea so that what had once been sea-bed was now mountainous.

Here are some other pertinent quotes from Galileo that I found while browsing;


In his "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina" the following statements appear within three consecutive paragraphs (quoted from Stillman Drake's Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, Doubleday Anchor, 1957).

These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities of the common people, who are rude and unlearned, For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise ex0ositors should produce the true senses of such passages....

This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations; ...

. , . nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words.

Somewhat farther along Galileo quotes with approval Pererius Genesis.

We must also take heed, in handling the doctrine of Moses, that we altogether avoid saying positively and confidently anything which contradicts manifest experiences and the reasoning of philosophy or the other sciences. For since every truth is in agreement with all other truth, the truth of Holy Writ cannot be contrary to the solid reasons and experiences of human knowledge.

so you're saying Galileo was a TE.

 

[PaladinValer]

You take it allegorically when the text says "day", yet in the very same text you take the persons of Adam and Eve literally?
I don't need to explain the inconsistencies of your reading of Scripture of that one... surely.

They are not interdependent on each other. God could have finished in six days and not formed Adam and Eve but Anthony and Maria.

However, Genesis 1 has both men and women created together. Genesis 2 has man first, then woman.

Now there's an inconsistency.

Your evolution worldview disproves Adam and Eve, I assume nothing.
If you're a TE, Adam and Eve's predecessors are apes.

Here we go with relying on false ideas on what evolution theorizes...

EVOLUTION THEORIZES THAT APES AND HUMANITY EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR, NOT THAT HUMANITY EVOLVED FROM APES.

Please get your facts straight.

"MY" Adam and Eve have NO predecessors, Adam's "predecessor" is the dust of the Earth and Eve is the bones and flesh of Adam IE: literal understanding of GENESIS.

**Rips out Genesis 1**

Now point out where I'm wrong in your TE's line of logic...

The very word "Adam" in Hebrew means one of several things:

1. A personal name
2. A term for all modern human beings
3. Red Earth

According to archaeological evidence the first modern human beings were the first of all species to have such an advanced mental capacity that religion was within their grasp (Neanderthals, upon meeting modern humans for the first time, only then began to perform such practices, though they were out of emulation, not that they understood it). Part of their various rituals was the use of red ochre in both body painting and in burial.

That meets 2 and 3.

In addition, it is possible to simply give the very first modern human male the name of Adam today if we want, for he would be, in the sense of Hebrew sociology, linguistics, and anthropology, the "father" of the race for he was the first. Same with Eve for being the "mother" of the race.

1, 2, and 3 met. With scientific backing and no disregard for the theologies behind Genesis.

And enlighten me on your theology of how sin and death entered the world ("for the wages of sin IS death" - ie: one is not independent of the other as I've heard some try to argue.) - your TE logic disproves that "death entered into the world through one man" because your ape-ancestor-of-Adam must've die to spawn the offspring "Adam"
(as you can see I'm having trouble comprehending this new way of 'exegesis' - or non-exegesis as the case so rightly is.)

1. Again, this is a reliance on some YEC lie about what evolution theorizes. Get a better source of info please.
2. Physical death had and would have already occurred:

1. Some species of living organisms do not live for even one 24-hour day. Some live for but hours or less. They would have died long before Adam and Eve were formed from the ground according to YEC belief.
2. The Bible implies quite clearly that Adam and Eve never touched the fruit of the Tree of Life. If they were already immortal, why would they need to partake of that fruit? Since it is clear that they would have needed to to become immortal, logic dictates that, before partaking, they were mortal. Death was already in their future.

So what then is the death? It is spiritual death, which is what happens each time we sin. Our souls are broken; we no longer can simply rely on ourselves to always follow God's Will. We need help. Each time we sin, our souls break that much more, and we sink into spiritual death that much more. When we repent of our sins, feel bad about sinning, promise not to sin again, turn back to God, and do penance for the sins, our souls begin to slowly heal through God's Grace because we will have made our will, God's Will (in other words, we cooperate with God's Will).

And which would be worst? Biological death in any hope of God's Grace or spiritual death in no hope of God's Grace? I'd pick the latter as worse.

 

[Biliskner]

They are not interdependent on each other. God could have finished in six days and not formed Adam and Eve but Anthony and Maria.

but Genesis says "Adam and Eve" - and it even gives reasons why they are named Adam and Eve - but you probably missed those reasons thinking of Anthony and Maria?

However, Genesis 1 has both men and women created together. Genesis 2 has man first, then woman.

Now there's an inconsistency.

in one day, man first, then woman.
inconsistency? where? it happens on day 6. win.

Here we go with relying on false ideas on what evolution theorizes...

EVOLUTION THEORIZES THAT APES AND HUMANITY EVOLVED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR, NOT THAT HUMANITY EVOLVED FROM APES.

Please get your facts straight.

I KNOW.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

ape, amobea, ant, fly, motorcycle, space shuttle, aliens, demons, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

my understanding refutes yours, you might know that, you might not.
i say Adam was created out of the dust of the ground, that is why when we die we rot into the ground leaving bones only, fulfuling God's promise to Adam.

v'yyitzer YHWH 'Elohim 'et ha'adam 'aphar min ha'adamah

"The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground."

**Rips out Genesis 1**

rips !??!??!

should not that be **Ripped out Genesis 1**

The very word "Adam" in Hebrew means one of several things:

1. A personal name
2. A term for all modern human beings
3. Red Earth

According to archaeological evidence the first modern human beings were the first of all species to have such an advanced mental capacity that religion was within their grasp (Neanderthals, upon meeting modern humans for the first time, only then began to perform such practices, though they were out of emulation, not that they understood it). Part of their various rituals was the use of red ochre in both body painting and in burial.

That meets 2 and 3.

In addition, it is possible to simply give the very first modern human male the name of Adam today if we want, for he would be, in the sense of Hebrew sociology, linguistics, and anthropology, the "father" of the race for he was the first. Same with Eve for being the "mother" of the race.

1, 2, and 3 met. With scientific backing and no disregard for the theologies behind Genesis.

True theology. Impressive.

Try Yom:
http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm

However,

According to archaeological evidence the first modern human beings were the first of all species to have such an advanced mental capacity that religion was within their grasp (Neanderthals, upon meeting modern humans for the first time, only then began to perform such practices, though they were out of emulation, not that they understood it). Part of their various rituals was the use of red ochre in both body painting and in burial.

is speculation. You do not know that is what happened - it is in your imagination. How old are you? Have you got a time machine?
Archaeologists don't dig up a fossil and see a tag that says "hey i'm a Neanderthal (or whatever)"
Mental capacity. If you died now, and your parents buried you, and some dude digs you up 2000 years from now and said "you have low mental capacity" - how can he possibly prove that? it's dogma.

1. Again, this is a reliance on some YEC lie about what evolution theorizes. Get a better source of info please.
2. Physical death had and would have already occurred:

1. Some species of living organisms do not live for even one 24-hour day. Some live for but hours or less. They would have died long before Adam and Eve were formed from the ground according to YEC belief.
2. The Bible implies quite clearly that Adam and Eve never touched the fruit of the Tree of Life. If they were already immortal, why would they need to partake of that fruit? Since it is clear that they would have needed to to become immortal, logic dictates that, before partaking, they were mortal. Death was already in their future.

So what then is the death? It is spiritual death, which is what happens each time we sin. Our souls are broken; we no longer can simply rely on ourselves to always follow God's Will. We need help. Each time we sin, our souls break that much more, and we sink into spiritual death that much more. When we repent of our sins, feel bad about sinning, promise not to sin again, turn back to God, and do penance for the sins, our souls begin to slowly heal through God's Grace because we will have made our will, God's Will (in other words, we cooperate with God's Will).

And which would be worst? Biological death in any hope of God's Grace or spiritual death in no hope of God's Grace? I'd pick the latter as worse.

because you cannot envision no death before the Fall does not mean you are correct on this issue. can you possibly envision no death after Christ's Second Coming? (assume no because you could not envision it pre-Fall)

be wary when using this argument - science 'proves' than when humans die they don't come back to life. Jesus says otherwise. Don't compromise unnessarily.

just one more question to finish off:

will there be decay in the New Creation? will your skin shed itself? (die?) will there be poo? will the poo die? (decay) etc. etc.

 

[Vance]

Biliskner, you create a bit of a quandry. Occasionally, in the past, atheists have come onto this board and the other one, and posed as YEC's in order to make YEC's look bad. The problem has been that it is often difficult to distinguish between someone trying to make YEC'ism look bad and some YEC's simply asserting their beliefs. In your case, I have been trying to decide which you really are, since one of the clues of an imposter is that they have very few posts under their belt (having created the account for the purpose). I am leaning toward assuming you are a true YEC, rather than an imposter, however.

 

[Biliskner]

Biliskner, you create a bit of a quandry. Occasionally, in the past, atheists have come onto this board and the other one, and posed as YEC's in order to make YEC's look bad. The problem has been that it is often difficult to distinguish between someone trying to make YEC'ism look bad and some YEC's simply asserting their beliefs. In your case, I have been trying to decide which you really are, since one of the clues of an imposter is that they have very few posts under their belt (having created the account for the purpose). I am leaning toward assuming you are a true YEC, rather than an imposter, however.

gee. thanks.

i am still intrigued at why Christians are evolutionists (TEs, whatever.)
Is Evolution really that convincing?
Is Genesis really poetry in your eyes?
<insert other reason>

for me, no to both q's.

 

[Vance]

gee. thanks.

i am still intrigued at why Christians are evolutionists (TEs, whatever.)
Is Evolution really that convincing?
Is Genesis really poetry in your eyes?
<insert other reason>

for me, no to both q's.

Yes, evolution is absolutely the most convincing explanation of the data we have. That is why the vast majority of even Christian scientists accept it.

Yes, Genesis reads entirely as a figurative account (not strictly just poetry, since it uses typology, symbolism, etc, as well). I really have a hard time seeing how anyone reads that text as strict historical narrative. I can assure you that if you took a nearly identical text with the same literary style from another ANE culture and asked 100 whether the writer of that text, or the original readers of that text, saw it as strict literal historical narrative, most would say no.

 

[indonesianpalmtree]

Hi guys.

You know, what if God made the earth already appearing mature... Adam was already a full grown man when he was made. Maybe the earth shows signs (fossils 'n layers 'n stuff) of being old, but it's not. We just won't know...ever...

BTW, Biliskner, you asked earlier why the Babylonians couldn't have taken their myths from Israel? I'm only a first year student, but according to popular (and it seems plausible) scholarly opinion, Enuma Elish etc. are older than most OT works. This doesn't discount your suggestion, but it makes the former more likely.

Then again, maybe the event did in fact take place and the story spread to all nations - some bending it and others like the Jews preserving it perfectly (quite unprovable, though).

This whole argument is based on assumptions of likelyhood more than hard facts, don't you think? The whole dilemma is that the NT's credibility is founded on the OT - no doubt about that. Jesus quoted Scripture in the desert, Paul... everyone in the NT probably believed the earth was made in 7 days. Even the 10 commandments refers to the Sabbath - why? Because God made the earth in seven days (supposedly).

If I may, I want to share my view:

1) I'm not making the groundwork of researching this subject based upon factual evidence, but rather my faith - for instance: is the OT reliable? It has to be since Jesus (personal Saviour and all) believed it was. If something seems to indicate the contrary, the problem must lie with the "more probably answer".

2) The whole Adam-was-made-mature thingy I mentioned earlier.

3) The fact that I'll never know (and neither will you) and I'd rather lean toward what I want to believe if that is the case (but no dogmatizing it, folks! Admit speculation!)

So you see, whether the OT is reliable or not is important... it's even of paramount importance since Judaism (also meaning Christianity) depends on that, but we shouldn't pretend to think that Christianity is at risk because it is unlikely rather than provable. If I had been there and saw the whole thing happen, then crygenically froze myself till yesterday and told you that God made the earth in 7 days and Gilgamesh is a wacko, would you believe me? Nope, that is very unlikely

God bless guys, and remember the love... woohoo!

-Pete