T
TeddyReceptus
Guest
Unless all Jews were exactly the same then we still don't know who wrote it. Which was my original poin.
"through" the Jews would seem to call into question what it's intent is. If it is a creation myth similar to other creation myths from the general area then one must assume all the other creation myths are correct and true.
But even then, what do we really know about the earliest israelites? We have stories of them coming into and militarily taking over Canaan. But it may be that they were highland tribes which slowly moved into other parts of Canaan.
Who wrote the book fo Genesis? What were their views of who Yahweh was? There appears to have been at least one variant of Yahwism in which Yahweh had a wife (Asherah).
The development of Judaism may have evolved from various other Canaanite religions. That Genesis comes from deeper traditions may be quite interesting.
I am referring to the textual differences that point to the "P" and "J" authorship.
No. Nor do I have to! The writing is what it is. The book of Genesis when used to do science would require we know a bit more about what it's provenance was. For instance what if it is intended to be allegorical? Or what if, as is very likely, if the authors felt the stories were true, they were simply trying to understand what they couldn't be expected to know.
Genesis interpretted as literal truth of the creation of the earth seems pointless and silly. Even if one can read it allegorically and find spritual meaning that is fine, but understanding actual physical reality through its pages seems irrational.
No, the point of my statement is that Genesis is like finding a scrap of some story. You don't know who wrote it, if their plan was for it to be fiction, or if it was intended to be allegory, or if it was intended to be "poetry", etc.
So if you pick up this scrap of paper and use it to found a basis for understanding science in defiance of what the physical world shows seems to be an abrogation of common sense.
I am not saying you can't believe in God, by any stretch of the imagination. My point is that Genesis is not the most reasonable source of data about how the world actually came to be or the early history of humanity moreso than any of a million other creation myths from around the world.
Here's the point you were originally responding to:
Creationists are relying on Genesis to tell us literally how the earth was formed and the earliest history of earth. My point was that about the only thing we know about the ancients who wrote/spoke/orally passed down "Genesis" is that they knew nothing about the actual development of the earth. Basic science was not really understood and geology per se didn't really come into existence as a means of understanding earth history until about 200 years ago.
But why would someone expect the ancients to know that grass DIDN'T show up on earth before the sun? Or that FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE loooooong predate any land animals or birds?
They didn't know what the fossil record said.
That was my point. And, of course, it is quite relevant to the discussion.
Not sure I agree with that. Anyway, my statement that you took exception to is removed. Hope that makes you feel better? It's just as easy to get God to stop talking to you, but much harder to "hear" what He has to say
And of course it apparently is quite hard for some people to hear what others say as well.
Upvote
0
