The myth explanation

[Joykins]

Just had to correct this... It was covering the War of 1812.

The British were shelling Fort McHenry, Baltimore. Yes, it was during the War of 1812. The actual flag that flew that night was hanging up in the National Museum of American History in Washington DC, right above a Foucalt's Pendulum, for a long time; I assume it's still there.

Joy

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The British were shelling Fort McHenry, Baltimore. Yes, it was during the War of 1812. The actual flag that flew that night was hanging up in the National Museum of American History in Washington DC, right above a Foucalt's Pendulum, for a long time; I assume it's still there.

Joy

The flag you saw was not the one flying that night, it is actually the one raised the next day when the British stopped shelling. The original is lost to history, it was much smaller anyway, so they just adopted the large one into the American mythos. The pieces missing were not from the shelling but the wife of the forts commander selling off chunks when the story of the battle was getting around.

 

[artybloke]

Throughout Jewish history, Genesis has been read as a historical narrative.

Care to back this up with historical evidence? Eg the writings of the early rabbis (of which there were several schools)? I'm sure there were some who thought of it as history, but I doubt you'd find many Jewish scholars who think that such a view was by any means unanimous. Of course, on some level, they did take it literally*; after all, the sheer overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence in favour of evolution was not by any means evident at the time. They didn't have any alternative.

So anything that is sung, is automatically not history and is a poem or poetic or myth?

When was the last time you sang Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire? And it's not that a poem cannot be about historical events (like The Charge of The Light Brigade) just that the primary purpose of a poem is poetic, not an accurate rendition of facts. Well the Tennyson poem is based on a real event, I wouldn't go to it for accurate information about that event. I'd go to contemporary accounts and documents from the time. The same is true of the "histories" in the OT, most of which are written in poetic form. Poets are more interested in making things fit the metre than is healthy for an accurate history, that and they usually have some point to make about life, God or the universe that everything has to be fitted in. Most of the Old Testament is poetry of one sort or another.

And Genesis 1 isn't an allegory, by the way. Genesis 2 has some of the hallmarks of allegory (people with symbolic names & talking animals, for instance) but not Genesis 1.

* Although I doubt very much you'd get the same understanding of "literal" as the modernist-positivist view of literal espoused by most fundamentalists.

 

[Critias]

Care to back this up with historical evidence? Eg the writings of the early rabbis (of which there were several schools)? I'm sure there were some who thought of it as history, but I doubt you'd find many Jewish scholars who think that such a view was by any means unanimous. Of course, on some level, they did take it literally*; after all, the sheer overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence in favour of evolution was not by any means evident at the time. They didn't have any alternative.

I see. So you don't have to back up what you say or assert - since you haven't provided evidence of your previous assertion?

Let us take even the most liberal usage of Scripture, within the Jewish community in the early first century, done by Philo. Philo didn't think creation was in six days, but Philo did believe Genesis was a historical narrative. You want proof, google Philo's works and you can go read them for yourself.

When was the last time you sang Gibbon's Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire? And it's not that a poem cannot be about historical events (like The Charge of The Light Brigade) just that the primary purpose of a poem is poetic, not an accurate rendition of facts. Well the Tennyson poem is based on a real event, I wouldn't go to it for accurate information about that event. I'd go to contemporary accounts and documents from the time. The same is true of the "histories" in the OT, most of which are written in poetic form. Poets are more interested in making things fit the metre than is healthy for an accurate history, that and they usually have some point to make about life, God or the universe that everything has to be fitted in. Most of the Old Testament is poetry of one sort or another.

Well, I haven't sang the specific works you are requiring for proof, but I have sang about Christ's death on the Cross and resurrection. Surely you wouldn't assert that Christ's death and resurrection are not historical?

And Genesis 1 isn't an allegory, by the way. Genesis 2 has some of the hallmarks of allegory (people with symbolic names & talking animals, for instance) but not Genesis 1.

Then you will have to take issue with most of the Church Fathers for looking into Biblical history and trying to see what Jesus wants them to learn, or shall we say the lesson.

* Although I doubt very much you'd get the same understanding of "literal" as the modernist-positivist view of literal espoused by most fundamentalists.

We are not talking about modern view points. We are talking about ancient Hebrew understanding of Genesis. If you don't know, if you haven't studied it, if you don't know a bit of Hebrew, if you don't look at Genesis in Hebrew, if you don't Hebrew poetry, if you don't know Hebrew narratives, then you really cannot make such assertions about things you know nothing about.

 

[Micaiah]

The flag you saw was not the one flying that night, it is actually the one raised the next day when the British stopped shelling. The original is lost to history, it was much smaller anyway, so they just adopted the large one into the American mythos. The pieces missing were not from the shelling but the wife of the forts commander selling off chunks when the story of the battle was getting around.

Funny. I thought LewisWildermuth used to be female. Is this a case of mistaken avatar identity, or a change of gender.

There used to be a LewisWildermuth on the forums who aparently was the wife of the male bearing the avatar Rufus Atticus, the nodding chimp.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Funny. I thought LewisWildermuth used to be female. Is this a case of mistaken avatar identity, or a change of gender.

There used to be a LewisWildermuth on the forums who aparently was the wife of the male bearing the avatar Rufus Atticus, the nodding chimp.

A long while back, after one of the board crashes, my gender symbol was changed when the board restarted and I didn't realize it for a month or so...



I remember Rufus's posts, but I am definitely not his wife.



I didn't know he married a Wildermuth, if he did... But Lewis is a male name for the most part, at least I have never seen a female with that spelling.

 

[gluadys]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/enuma.htm

Could you show me how you see the order of creation in Genesis matching up with the Enuma Elish? Enuma Elish spends no more than 9 lines about pieces of creation, not creating.

But, I assume you see it differently. So maybe you can help me see it as you do?

Both the similarities and differences between Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish (EE) are fascinating. They both open with much the same scene--one of a chaotic watery abyss. In the EE this is accounted for by Apsu (fresh water) and Tiamat (salt water) being commingled and in confusion at a time when heaven and earth were not yet named (i.e. called into being). In Genesis the parallel is seen with an alternate reading of vs. 1-2 which joins them into a single sentence thus: "When, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and empty and the Spirit of God brooded on the waters of the deep."

The main verb in vs. 2 is variously translated as rested, hovered, moved, blew and at least once as brooded. I like this translation best as it brings out the force of the Hebrew verb. It is a rare verb with a specific reference to the fluttering motion of a bird descending onto its nest. It conveys the image of God nesting on the waters and producing creation out of chaos as a bird produces eggs.

In the EE, the counterpart to this image is the mating of Apsu and Tiamat and the birth of the gods.

One thing the writer of Genesis did not need to include was the war of Apsu and Tiamat against their children. Instead we get the creation of Light and Dark, Day and Night.

In the EE there is a short hiatus in the war after the death of Apsu. At this time, the rebellious gods turn to one of the younger gods, Marduk, and make him supreme. (A mythological reference to the rise of Babylon to political power over older nations and their gods. The Assyrian version of the EE puts their god, Ashur, in the role of Marduk.) He kills Tiamat in single combat, then cuts her body in half from head to tail "like a flat fish" (Tiamat was depicted as a sea monster) and uses the upper half to create the firmament.

The Genesis counterpart is God creating the firmament.

Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, is associated with vegetation. Later in the EE he is described as "Bestower of planting," "Founder of sowing"
"Creator of grain and plants," "who caused the green herb to spring up!"

In Genesis the creation of the firmament occurs on day 2 because Tiamat is the oldest of the goddesses, "Mother of all".

The creation of vegetation occurs on day 3, because Marduk is the principal god of Babylon and takes precedence over all the other gods.

Marduk's next action is to establish the stars, the signs of the Zodiac, the Sun & Moon, and the ordering of times and seasons accordingly--even including the seven day week. All of this corresponds to day 4 in Genesis, except that instead of being "the stations of the gods" the celestial bodies are simply lights.

I don't see a reference in the EE to the creation of animals. Nor do I expect it to be found in the lost lines. From what I recall of the story, the younger gods became restless at having to work for the older gods, and Marduk created humans to relieve them of the necessity of work. That is not clear in this text and may come from some commentary. In any case, humans were last to be created to maintain the service of the gods.

Genesis 1 does include the creation of animals and also concludes with the creation of humanity. But in the Genesis version, humans are created with the dignity of the image of God and a role of kingship over creation that is lacking in the EE.


We can set the parallel like this:

Prelude to creation

earth formless, void, Spirit of God moves on waters of the abyss

EE Heaven & earth not yet named. Apsu & Tiamat (fresh and salt water) commingled and confused.

DAY ONE

Creation of Light/Day and Dark/Night

Possible parallel to EE's war of the gods in which the primeval gods of chaos (i.e. darkness/night) attack the gods whose births set up the elements of created order (=day/light)

DAY TWO

Creation of the firmament

EE: Marduk uses upper half of Tiamat's body to create the firmament.

DAY THREE

Creation of dry land and vegetation.

EE: Marduk creates realms for the gods, including Ea (Earth) and "causes the green herb to spring up!"

DAY FOUR

Creation of sun, moon and stars, to rule day & night and to keep track of times and seasons.

EE Marduk establishes the stations of the gods in the heavens (stars and signs of the Zodiac, moon-god and sun-god) and the month and week (based on phases of the moon).

DAY FIVE

Creation of birds and sea creatures

EE: no counterpart

DAY SIX

Creation of land animals and humans

EE: creation of humans

DAY SEVEN

God contemplates his creation and establishes the Sabbath.

EE: the gods acclaim Marduk and give him 50 names.


To me the parallelism is quite clear. So is the strong contrast of the monotheism of Genesis to the polytheism of the EE.

 

[Numenor]

You cannot be serious, can you? If I take your six examples above, I can apply them to most of the Bible, if not all of it.

You could also apply it to today's newspaper. Emm...is that your point?

that is some serious jumping through hoops.

Explain Election, Theodicy or the Trinity without jumping through hoops. Christians are not called to be intellectually lazy.

Gluady's, mythical writing was not the norm

And you were just about to share with us the proof for this assertion...

 

[gluadys]

Thanks to Numenor quoting this post I realized I had never answered it.

Some of these conclusions can be applied to Jesus as well.

I don't know what you mean or why you think it worth commenting on. All stories have a principal character or group of characters. In myths that character is a deity or group of deities. In his incarnation, Jesus was human and engaged in human activities. So the various gospel stories about the human Jesus are not myth. As part of the Trinity, Jesus is God and engages in divine activities, notably creation. However, the scriptural passages that refer to Jesus as Creator are not mythological in character, because they are not in a story format.

Really? So you see no connection in Genesis 2:4-3 with Genesis 1?

Other than the fact that they are both creation stories. They are very different from each other. Furthermore the Gen2:4b ff story was written 2-3 centuries before the Gen. 1:1-2:4a account. The writer of Gen. 1 would have been familiar with the Gen. 2 story, but did not use it as a base for his own story.

Serpents, trees, sacrifices, a garden, testing of human characters are defined as symbolic?

No. However, talking serpents, magic trees, a primordial garden and the respective sacrifices of primoridal brothers are. The testing of human character is the reality they point to. That is not symbolic; it is what is being expressed through the symbols of the myth.

Much of the Old Testament and New can be symbolic then.

Of course.

Jesus explains why things are as well, was that mythical?

Depends on the specific explanation. While myths often explain things, not all explanations are mythical.

So, because it explains our sinful beginning and what sin has done, it is a myth?

That and the means used to explain it--i.e. a story filled with symbols. One could explain the origin of sin in a very different way e.g. the doctrine of original sin found in systematic theology. The latter is not myth even though it explains the same thing, because it uses a different literary format. In modern times one finds psychological explanations of "sin" (though psychologists tend not to use the theological term). So it is not just what is explained, but how it is explained that marks a myth. Use of a story as the explanatory framework is a mythological approach.

We are comparing the Greeks with Ancient Hebrews? These cultures were very much different.

Myth was a near universal means of explaining things before science was developed. One finds it in cultures as diverse as the Chinese and the Mayan. Why not both the Hebrew and the Greek?

Jesus' stories and lessons are applicable to all times. His lessons are timeless. Was Jesus then a myth?

You know better than to confuse the story with the story-teller.

So, saying Yahweh Elohim denotes myth? Historical recordings are also used to identify a people and their culture. To explains who they were and what they did within the world.

No, there are plenty of non-mythical passages in the bible that also identify the God of Israel as Yahweh Elohim. What it does here is denote which God is the principal character in this myth. Remember this story was written at a time when the Israelites believed that other gods were as real as Yahweh. The importance of Yahweh was that he was Israel's God, the one who had made a covenant with Israel, not one of the gods of the nations.

Yes, lots of non-mythical records also identify a people and their culture---but they often do so within the framework of the national myth. One sees this even in modern societies. 19th century Americans understood their history (and framed their foreign policy) within the myth of Manifest Destiny. Today we see the rapid development of the myth of the American Empire. I don't expect all Americans agree with this myth, but a number of key American decision-makers do, so it is guiding today's American foreign policy.

While history can be objective, how it is interpreted is very malleable and often driven by currently accepted myths.

You cannot be serious, can you? If I take your six examples above, I can apply them to most of the Bible, if not all of it.

No, you can't. Much of the bible is not myth. For example, much of the bible is not story at all. It is law, proverbs, social teaching, ritual, song, prophecy, and apocalypse.

Of the remainder, which is story, most is legend and some is parable and some is even history. These can be distinguished from myth because, although God is always present in the bible, God is not always the main character of a story. In Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, it is the Samaritan that is the principal character. In the legendary stories of Abraham, Abraham is the main character. In the historical story of Hezekiah, Hezekiah is the main character. With the exception of parable, there is also much less use of symbol in these stories.

Identifying Genesis as a myth is being careless with the interpretation. Can you draw from other ancient myths and show why Genesis is just like them?

See comparison of Genesis with Enuma Elish.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Here is a quick little comparison between Babylonian, Egyptian and Biblical creation myths I did a while back.

Egyptian Creation

The Book of the Dead, dating to the Second Intermediate Period, describes how the world was created by Atum, the god of Heliopolis, the centre of the sun-god cult in Lower Egypt. In the beginning, the world appeared as an infinite expanse of dark and directionless waters, named Nun. Nun was personified as four pairs of male and female deities. Each couple represented one of four principles that characterized Nun: hiddenness or invisibility, infinite water, straying or lack of direction, and darkness or lack of light.

According to the Pyramid Texts, written on the walls of pyramids, the creator god emerged from the chaotic darkness of Nun as a mythical Bennu bird (similar to a heron or phoenix).

At a time the Egyptians called Zep Tepi (the First Time), Atum created two offspring. His son, Shu, represented dry air, and his daughter, Tefnut, represented corrosive moist air. The twins symbolize two universal principles of human existence: life and right (justice).



Babylonian Creation

When on high the heaven had not been named,
Firm ground below had not been called by name,
When primordial Apsu, their begetter,
And Mummu-Tiamat, she who bore them all,
Their waters mingled as a single body,
No reed hut had sprung forth, no marshland had appeared,
None of the gods had been brought into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies determined--



Genesis Creation

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.



3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.



6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.



Me

Notice how all three start with a watery void. God flies over the water just as Atum does. Waters are separated, sweet and bitter in both Genesis and the Babylonian myth (Apsu and Tiamat representing sweet and bitter waters.)





Egyptian Creation

The twins separated the sky from the waters. They produced children named Geb, the dry land, and Nut, the sky. When the primeval waters receded, a mound of earth (Geb) appeared, providing the first solid dry land for the sun god, Re, to rest. During the dynastic period, Atum was also known as Re, meaning the sun at its first rising.



Babylonian Creation

He split her like a shellfish into two parts:
Half of her he set up as a covering for heaven,
Pulled down the bar and posted guards.
He bade them to allow not her waters to escape.



Genesis Creation

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.



Me

Creation of sky and land is very similar in all three. Also note that the primordial waters are trapped below the land in both Babylonian and Hebrew mythologies.



Egyptian Creation

In a third variation, a lotus flower emerged from the waters and opened to reveal a child-god [Ra, sun god].



Babylonian Creation

In her belly he established the zenith.

The Moon he caused to shine, entrusting the night to him.

He appointed him a creature of the night to signify the days,

And marked off every month, without cease, by means of his crown.

At the month's very start, rising over the land,

You shall have luminous horns to signify six days,

On the seventh day reaching a half-crown.



Genesis Creation

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.



14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.



Me

All three have plants before the sun.



Man is also created last in all three and is to serve God/gods.



Sources:

http://www.civilization.ca/civil/egypt/egcr09e.html



http://www.cresourcei.org/enumaelish.html



http://www.biblegateway.com/

 

[GenemZ]

Time to get a little more specific.

First we have two creation accounts in Genesis. This has been evident for centuries and biblical commentators speculated on why long before any tools of modern scholarship were brought to bear on the biblical text.

Linguistic analysis shows us that the two accounts were produced by two different writers.

Ironically, linguistic analysis reveals the opposite! Superficial, linguistic analysis of translations cause your error. Analysis of the Hebrew shows that two different phases of the same creation were taking place. The Hebrew word for "create" [bara] is not used in the second chapter.

Bara, reveals creating things out from nothing. In the second chapter, what was taking place was the formation of bodies from what had been already created by, "bara", in Chapter One.​

I realize from past contact that you have you apologists in the wings to quote from who will try an obscure the meaning intended in Chapter One for the use of the Hebrew word, "bara." But, that does not change the reality that both chapters can be shown to be in complete harmony, and written by one author.

I know from your past resonses that you feel the need to disprove this. But, it still does not negate the fact that a legitimate logical answer is at hand to show what I say is true. Its just a matter of the willingness to accept it.

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Ironically, linguistic analysis reveals the opposite! Superficial, linguistic analysis of translations cause your error. Analysis of the Hebrew shows that two different phases of the same creation were taking place. The Hebrew word for "create" [bara] is not used in the second chapter.​

You have it backwards about, genez. First, translations conceal differences in the Hebrew. Translations may use "create" for either 'bara' or 'asah' and may use "made" for either as well.

Translations also conceal differences in writing styles, not only from person to person but from generation to generation. An English translation of the OT gives no indication that the books of Kings were written well before the books of Chronicles, but this is as obvious in Hebrew as that Dickens wrote earlier than Hemingway.

That is why all linguistic analysis is applied to the original Hebrew text, not to translations.

The Hebrew word for "create" [bara] is not used in the second chapter. Bara, reveals creating things out from nothing. In the second chapter, what was taking place was the formation of bodies from what had been already created by, "bara", in Chapter One.

Right. That is one of the indications that the first account of creation was written by a different author than the second.

It is also the source of one of the contradictions in the two creation accounts. In Gen. 2:7 the writer says God made ('asah') a man from the dust of the earth. But in Gen. 1:27 it says God created ('bara') humankind (both genders) in his image. 'Bara' as you note, implies creation out of nothing .

So did God create ('bara') humankind from nothing or make ('asah') humans from earth?​

 

[GenemZ]

You have it backwards about, genez. First, translations conceal differences in the Hebrew. Translations may use "create" for either 'bara' or 'asah' and may use "made" for either as well.

Really, now.....

Translations also conceal differences in writing styles, not only from person to person but from generation to generation. An English translation of the OT gives no indication that the books of Kings were written well before the books of Chronicles, but this is as obvious in Hebrew as that Dickens wrote earlier than Hemingway.

That is why all linguistic analysis is applied to the original Hebrew text, not to translations.

That is not the problem in this case..... But, thanks for the data.

It is also the source of one of the contradictions in the two creation accounts. In Gen. 2:7 the writer says God made ('asah') a man from the dust of the earth. But in Gen. 1:27 it says God created ('bara') humankind (both genders) in his image. 'Bara' as you note, implies creation out of nothing .

It does not say God made (asah) man from the dust of the earth. The Hebrew word is "yatsar!" To form and mold!

And, the Hebrew word for the woman's body is different! Its' "banah"... her body was "built!' Adam's, was formed and molded from the elements of the earth. God extracted the needed phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium, etc... for the bones, etc..... Once God established the human body in Adam from the extraction of the elements of the earth, he then took the same material from Adam, and then built upon what he had already produced!

So did God create ('bara') humankind from nothing or make ('asah') humans from earth?

You have your Hebrew words all mixed up. Asah means to make. Like, "Let's make a painting." Or, "I am making some soup."

God said within the Trinity, "Let's make man in our image." That was an agreement upon design! As in..."Let's make him this way." Then, God went ahead and created [bara] out from nothing the souls of both male and female. It does not say, "man and woman." Male and female. Types of souls.

The soul is immaterial, and was created first. Then what happens in Genesis 2:7? God created a home for that soul....the human body.

The human body was not created out from nothing. It was formed (yatsar) out from the elements of the earth. Yatsar means to mold, like a potter molds clay.

Chapter one. God (in part) announces his intention on how certain things will be, and declares them as if they already are. He also creates out from nothing certain things. And, makes other existing things into something. Like he made the sun, moon , and stars into bearers of light.

In Chapter Two, he breaths into the nostrils the soul life, and the body then becomes a living soul. The soul without a body is called dead.

God saw prophetically in Chapter One certain parts of creation as already as being in full. Chapter One declares in God's mind, what was now beginning to be made manifest in Chapter Two. Like, the plantswere just beginning to sprout, etc. Yet, In Chapter One? God already saw what was to be, as if it were already being.

GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

Really, now.....

Yes.

That is not the problem in this case..... But, thanks for the data.

Funny. That's what it was in your last post.

It does not say God made (asah) man from the dust of the earth. The Hebrew word is "yatsar!" To form and mold!

Mea culpa. You are right. My point is that it does not say 'bara'.

You have your Hebrew words all mixed up. Asah means to make. Like, "Let's make a painting." Or, "I am making some soup."

God said within the Trinity, "Let's make man in our image."

That's right.

Gen. 1:25 And God made (asah) the beast of the earth...
Gen. 1:26 And God said, "Let us make (asah)man...

But then we get Gen. 1:27 So God created (bara) man in his own image; male and female created (bara) he them.

It does not say, "man and woman." Male and female.

You are right, but I am not wrong unless you can find me a female man or a male woman.

That was an agreement upon design! As in..."Let's make him this way." Then, God went ahead and created [bara] out from nothing the souls of both male and female. Types of souls.

The soul is immaterial, and was created first. Then what happens in Genesis 2:7? God created a home for that soul....the human body.

The human body was not created out from nothing. It was formed (yatsar) out from the elements of the earth. Yatsar means to mold, like a potter molds clay.

Chapter one. God (in part) announces his intention on how certain things will be, and declares them as if they already are. He also creates out from nothing certain things. And, makes other existing things into something. Like he made the sun, moon , and stars into bearers of light.

In Chapter Two, he breaths into the nostrils the soul life, and the body then becomes a living soul. The soul without a body is called dead.

God saw prophetically in Chapter One certain parts of creation as already as being in full. Chapter One declares in God's mind, what was now beginning to be made manifest in Chapter Two. Like, the plantswere just beginning to sprout, etc. Yet, In Chapter One? God already saw what was to be, as if it were already being.

GeneZ

Now you are making stuff up. None of that is in scripture. It may comfort you to interpret the scripture by adding in stuff that isn't there, but it is not acceptable hermeneutics.

 

[CentreOfMyLife]

Now you are making stuff up. None of that is in scripture. It may comfort you to interpret the scripture by adding in stuff that isn't there, but it is not acceptable hermeneutics.

Hmm, I always thought that the soul is both the spirit and the body, i.e. God breathed the breath of life (i.e. His Spirit - because He is the life giver) into the body that He molded and the man became a living soul.

Don't you, gluadys, make up stuff that isn't there and add it into the scripture? You claim that man evolved, yet Genesis 1 and in more detail 2 state that man was formed from the dust and shaped into God's image to resemble Him and that He breathed His Spirit into the body and then man became a living soul? You may claim that man from dust = evolution from lifeless chemicals, but then you have another problem: what does "since from dust you were made, to dust you will return" mean? Does that mean that after we die we devolve and eventually end up as pond scum? No, we literally degrade into dust. You are being hypocritical - even more so then genez - by adding stuff that isn't there and an idea that is foreign to the Bible.

 

[artybloke]

shaped into God's image

doesn't mean that God has some kind of physical form! It's a metaphor.

since from dust you were made, to dust you will return"

Another metaphor - aren't writers allowed to use them? Or should we be just as plain as a pikestaff (oops! a simile! language is such a slippery beast... (metaphor etc...))

 

[gluadys]

Don't you, gluadys, make up stuff that isn't there and add it into the scripture? You claim that man evolved,

I claim that man evolved, but I have never claimed that the bible says so. I do not add my scientific convictions to the bible. I just interpret the scriptures in light of what I know to be scientifically true.

yet Genesis 1 and in more detail 2 state that man was formed from the dust

Genesis 1 does not state that man was formed from the dust. It says God created (bara) humankind. And the verb 'bara', say the biblical commentators, means "create out of nothing." So Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2 which says man was not formed from nothing, but from the dust of the earth.

and shaped into God's image to resemble Him

And likewise, Genesis 2 does not say that the body God formed from the dust of the earth was made in God's image. It is Genesis 1 that says God created human kind in his image, and it does not say bodily image.

You may claim that man from dust = evolution from lifeless chemicals

I don't make that claim. I would say that since no details are given of the process of formation, the account does not rule out evolution, but it is clearly a stretch to suppose it refers to evolution. The writer did not have evolution in mind.

Does that mean that after we die we devolve and eventually end up as pond scum?

I expect most of us end up as compost, but pond scum is a possibility if one drowned in a pond and the body is not recovered. One way or another we end up (physically) as worm food. Our molecules are recycled into other life forms. Just as the molecules of other life forms were recycled into us when we ate them. We are very temporary owners of our physical bodies. We share and will share every molecule with other inhabitants of creation past, present and future.

 

[Floodnut]

my point is that the bible as we know it refers to them as birds. even if it is a mistranslation the people who wrote the bible wrote a mistake because they either assumed bats were birds or they mistranslated it and despite mistranslating it didnt seem to know any better that they werent birds.

Didn't know? Or didn't care. Or the word "bird" in their vocabulary meant someting different than it now means. You make a mistake to impose a modern meaning on ancient word, just as people do with the word "stars."

The ancients knew that bats were different from feathered birds, but their classification system was different from the one currently in use. Before I ever read any science book, I knew that bats were more like little flying mice than they were like sparrows. But as is so often the case with the opponents of the Biblical account being taken as historical narrative, they must ignore the question of the original thread and reveal their general opposition to ALL of the Bible.

 

[Micaiah]

doesn't mean that God has some kind of physical form! It's a metaphor.



Another metaphor - aren't writers allowed to use them? Or should we be just as plain as a pikestaff (oops! a simile! language is such a slippery beast... (metaphor etc...))

Metaphors can be such a convenient way to dismiss what God plainly intended us to accept as a statement of fact.

 

[gluadys]

Metaphors can be such a convenient way to dismiss what God plainly intended us to accept as a statement of fact.

Did Jesus not intend us to accept as a statement of fact that God is a spirit?

How then can the image of God in humanity be physical?