Taking questions on the Creation.

[The Lady Kate]

Lucifer is a fallen angel.

Luke seems to describe him as a fallen star... and it's quite clear that Lucifer, not his house, fell.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Yeah, creationists are literalists, until they have to cherry pick-ad hoc to make reality fit into their worldview.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, creationists are literalists, until they have to cherry pick-ad hoc to make reality fit into their worldview.

You're more than welcome to keep the conversation to Genesis 1, if you don't like what you think is cherry-picking and ad hoc'ing.

 

[The Lady Kate]

You're more than welcome to keep the conversation to Genesis 1, if you don't like what you think is cherry-picking and ad hoc'ing.

Alrighty then... what exactly did you hope to accomplish with this thread?

 

[Cabal]

Given that the Fall messed up existence so much, Genesis 1 is essentially redundant anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that the Fall messed up existence so much, Genesis 1 is essentially redundant anyway.

The Creation Account has information that can't be found with current instrumentation/science, though.

Yes, the state of the universe in Genesis 1 is nothing compared to the state of the universe in Revelation 3 (our current state), but Genesis 1 contains a rather large database of information that can't be found using empiricism alone --- not then, not today.

It contains what is called Apocalyptic Truths.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The Creation Account has information that can't be found with current instrumentation/science, though.

Yes, the state of the universe in Genesis 1 is nothing compared to the state of the universe in Revelation 3 (our current state), but Genesis 1 contains a rather large database of information that can't be found using empiricism alone --- not then, not today.

It contains what is called Apocalyptic Truths.

Thanks for admitting that the creation story is purely metaphysical, and untestable and unobservable. It's too bad that CSE doesn't share your personal opinion on the subject.

I've always said, creationists should stick with the "Goddidit-case closed" mantra, because as soon as they step off the reservation...

Perhaps you could field questions on the Vedas, Gilgamesh Epic or Iliad and Odyssey next, as they too reveal information that can't be found using empiricism alone.

 

[Cabal]

The Creation Account has information that can't be found with current instrumentation/science, though.

Yes, the state of the universe in Genesis 1 is nothing compared to the state of the universe in Revelation 3 (our current state), but Genesis 1 contains a rather large database of information that can't be found using empiricism alone --- not then, not today.

It contains what is called Apocalyptic Truths.

I agree - however, the other side of the debate concerns itself with stuff that does exist and can be observed, so it's still largely irrelevant to the debate.

Additionally, a lot of stuff that's plainly untrue "has information that can't be found with current science" either - a bit unfortunate that Genesis 1 carries the same disclaimer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for admitting that the creation story is purely metaphysical...

Perhaps you could field questions on the Vedas, Gilgamesh Epic or Iliad and Odyssey next, as they too reveal information that can't be found using empiricism alone.

I hope you see what you're doing here.

If by 'metaphysical', you meant it in its broadest sense, then you're putting the Creation Account in a box with mystical creation accounts, then challenging me to explain the mystical accounts with the same amount of credibility.

And all that serves to do, is to dilute what really happened with what really didn't happen.

 

[CoderHead]

And all that serves to do, is to dilute what really happened with what really didn't happen.

But I think the point being made here is that the Bible's creation account is as fantastic a story as any other creation account, in precisely the same ways. So for you to defend the Bible's creation account with what you consider a reasonable amount of credibility and at the same time discount the others because they're ridiculous seems incredible. I mean, you can't say, "I have a story that is similar to other stories that portrays acts of extreme power that circumvent the laws of the physical universe, but mine's true and the others are false." Can you, reasonably?

 

[AV1611VET]

But I think the point being made here is that the Bible's creation account is as fantastic a story as any other creation account...

As it should be.

... in precisely the same ways.

That's where all similarity ends.

When it comes to the Creation Week --- there's what actually happened, and there's what actually didn't happen.

From the perspective of what actually happened, what actually didn't happen constitutes what we call Diabolical Mimicry, or Diabolical Plagiarism.

The best way to define that is to say that for everything God has, Satan has a cheap imitation.

The Bible even exposed him:

... I will be like the most High.

 

[CoderHead]

But there are religions that predate Christianity with creation stories that predate the Bible's. So...?

 

[AV1611VET]

But there are religions that predate Christianity with creation stories that predate the Bible's. So...?

Not hardly.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, wasn't written until Sumeria was built --- by Nimrod, Noah's great-grandson.

 

[CoderHead]

The Sumerian creation myth, the oldest known, was found on a fragmentary clay tablet known as the "Eridu Genesis", datable to ca. the 18th century BC. It also includes a flood myth. Where the tablet picks up, the gods An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga create the Sumerians (the "black-headed people") and the animals. Then kings descend from the sky and the first cities are founded - Eridu, Bad-tibira, Larsa, Sippar, and Shuruppak.
After a missing section in the tablet, we learn that the gods have decided to send a flood to destroy humankind. Zi-ud-sura, the king and gudug priest, learns of this. (In the later Akkadian version, Ea, or Enki in Sumerian, the god of the waters, warns the hero (Atra-hasis in this case) and gives him instructions for the ark. This is missing in the Sumerian fragment, but a mention of Enki taking counsel with himself suggests that this is Enki's role in the Sumerian version as well.)
When the tablet resumes it is describing the flood. A terrible storm rocks the huge boat for seven days and seven nights, then Utu (the Sun god) appears and Zi-ud-sura creates an opening in the boat, prostrates himself, and sacrifices oxen and sheep.
After another break the text resumes, the flood is apparently over, the animals disembark and Zi-ud-sura prostrates himself before An (sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), who give him eternal life and take him to dwell in Dilmun for "preserving the animals and the seed of mankind". The remainder of the poem is lost.

When was Genesis written? Wikipedia says it was possibly as far back as the 10th century BC. Is that accurate?

Oh, and Noah didn't write the book of Genesis. So what are you trying to prove by saying Nimrod wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh?

 

[JusSumguy]

But there are religions that predate Christianity with creation stories that predate the Bible's. So...?

It's my belief that all these books talk of the same God, the same love, the same rules, the same good and the same bad.

I have no conflict with any books of God. Because I believe the there is only one God. And they all speak of him. From differing environments and customs. But, the same God.

If we were given the task of writing a bible right now, based on everything we know, using words from right now and having no knowledge of our current Bible, what would we write? Would we be writing about the same God as the one in the Bible we know, and love?

JusSayin


-

 

[CoderHead]

Given our current knowledge base and knowing nothing of the Bible, I don't think we'd be writing about gods at all.

 

[Justaman0000]

The sumeritan story of creation (or whats left of it) is similar to the biblical account and that predates other religions also. There is also a trinity at work in this creation.

The Hindu story of creation is very similar to the biblical creation account that is believed to have been given to Moses by God. The hindu story even has a trinity God. The Hindu religion is the oldest established religion known to man.

 

[Justaman0000]

When was Genesis written? Wikipedia says it was possibly as far back as the 10th century BC. Is that accurate?

Genesis was believed to have been written by Moses about 1450-1410 B.C.

 

[CoderHead]

Genesis was believed to have been written by Moses about 1450-1410 B.C.

The Sumerian creation myth, the oldest known, was found on a fragmentary clay tablet known as the "Eridu Genesis", datable to ca. the 18th century BC.

You can see my confusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

When was Genesis written?

It was autographed by various authors; from Adam to [probably] Joseph.

Wikipedia says it was possibly as far back as the 10th century BC. Is that accurate?

If you want to use that logic, let's just go with 1611 and be done with it.

Oh, and Noah didn't write the book of Genesis.

Noah would have autographed Genesis 6 - 9.

So what are you trying to prove by saying Nimrod wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh?

I didn't mean Nimrod wrote the Epic of Gilgamesh, I meant Nimrod built Sumeria.