Genesis query

[bnmoore]

"A people's belief about the world's beginnings is usually called a creation myth, mythology, story, or tale by other peoples. It should be noted, however, that to the people involved, these are not myths or stories. They are real, not in a linear, literal, scientific sense, but nevertheless real, and part of the authentic plurality of humankind's truths. Thus, a more useful and respectful way to describe these "myths" is to call them "sacred narratives," especially when the people to whom they are sacred are still living and revering these stories."

This was copied and pasted from a website with links to "Sacred Narratives" from diverse cultures. I don't feel that it would do anyone harm or shake anyone's faith to read how other's believe we got here.

[Lenny]

I have read in depth on the various creation epics. Fascinating stuff, especially the various accounts of a flood.

As for the supposed 'dual Genesis accounts', I would enjoy having the discussion. As I said earlier, I didn't address it as the topic was focused on whether the event is historical (thus the inner scriptural arguments taken as historical), and engaging in the issue of 'dual creation accounts' was a tangent and separate discussion.

However if you would desire such a discussion, I would join in, as long as we also address the best explanations for the Crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. I would be interested how the naturalist seeks the best explanation.

I hope to see some of you guys and gals tomorrow. God's Blessings.

[bnmoore]

I'm not sure who you were talking to but if it was me we go to the definition of Christos which means "anointed" or "enlightened one". We teach Christ as a universal idea, and each one "puts on the Christ" to the degree that he or she surrenders a limited sense of life to the divine realization of wholeness and unity with Good, Spirit-God. We teach the message of Christ as unconditional love, non judgment, forgiveness, brotherhood, and peace. Lifestyle more than religion. We also include other teachers.

As monists we don't separate into creator and creature. It's all one thing. An easier concept could be the Hindu "Atman is Brahman Itself". Phrasing that as "Soul is God" might be confusing. I would call creation and evolution both universal constants. Neither seem to be slowing down.

There are members on this board that do call themselves Christians. Perhaps they would like to engage in dialog. I don't indulge in quarreling theology.

[krobbyzw]

Cool, thanks, Pablo. Have you had the time to check out Answers in Genesis or Creation Science evangelism? I have also come across the argument [from them] that evolution is a religion, since it requires belief in a set of circumstances that we cannot reproduce or observe, since it requires a time scale that no human can spare. The evolutionists, of course will say 100% that evolution is science and point to fossils as evidence. The creationists also point to the same fossils as proof of the literal global flood.

I do agree with you though on the Hebrews not using linear thinking. Our culture I would say has a more Greek way of thinking.

I wondered if you thought Jesus was merely 'conveying ideas rather than give facts' when He said 'I am the way, the truth and the life.'

I can see the point that if we 'chip away' too much at the book of Genesis by defining it as 'stories' then we deny the literal history of it. If we do that, then it becomes easier to dismiss more and more of the Bible as 'not necessarily factual' and that, I would say, works to Satan's advantage.

Thanks for your time!

[krobbyzw]

Hi Keltic, I found an answer in Kent Hovind's DVD 7 for you of the 'two creation stories.' He has called it 'Questions and Answers' and explains how there is no contradiction. It is available for download free of charge. Thanks for your reply.

[krobbyzw]

Hi Alecto, that is a good point. The argument that I have heard creationists use is that Jesus when dealing with Pharisees and scribes of His time, always went back to the 'authority of the Word of God,' for example 'Have you not read...?' and then He would quote Genesis in Matthew 19:4 when answering a question on divorce. Would be interested to know if He ever used parables when answering questions on divorce. Nothing comes to mind at the moment. Have a good day!

[krobbyzw]

Good point Pablo! I would agree with you.

[krobbyzw]

Thanks bnmoore, would I be correct in thinking you feel a literal six day creation is not historically accurate then? Would the 'millions of years' proposed by evolutionists be closer to the truth in your opinion?

[krobbyzw]

Hi Lenny, was wondering if you had come across Kent Hovind's DVD 7 - Questions and Answers in your research? I mentioned it to Keltic. I can quote from his explanation of the topic if you prefer, let me know what works for you.

Obviously the explanations he [and I] believe for the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus [and subsequent appearing to the disciples and ascension back into heaven] are that they were literal and historical.


Enjoy your day!

[krobbyzw]

Hi Ben, thanks for that! Wanted to ask when you say you "would call creation and evolution both universal constants" I wondered how the evolution concept of millions of years fits in the six-day creation account in your understanding?

Am I correct in thinking you do not see yourself as Christian?

[bnmoore]

Originally Posted by krobbyzw

Thanks bnmoore, would I be correct in thinking you feel a literal six day creation is not historically accurate then? Would the 'millions of years' proposed by evolutionists be closer to the truth in your opinion?

I don't think how we got here matters. Is the six days in chronos or kairos time? How does one measure time in Eternity? It's always now.

If I use the term 'evolution' I'm referring to the Spiritual not Darwinian. Or the infinite self-knowingness of God.

[Rick336]

Science, which uses evidence as a measurement, puts the creation of the universe at around 14 1/2 billion years (give or take a few billion). That seems like a more accurate time line.

Rick

[krobbyzw]

[QUOTE=bnmoore;74720]Is the six days in chronos or kairos time?

Hi Ben. The way it was explained to me is that the Hebrew word for 'day' used in the creation account is the same one as used when describing Jonah in the big fish and the Israelites marching around Jericho. Sounds like 'chronos' to me.

[krobbyzw]

Originally Posted by Rick336

Science, which uses evidence as a measurement, puts the creation of the universe at around 14 1/2 billion years (give or take a few billion). That seems like a more accurate time line.

Rick

Hi Rick, interesting that you should use the word 'science' there. I looked it up and found it was 'knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment' which means to me that anything that is not observable is not scientific.

Billions, or millions or thousands of years are not observable by humans, since we live to around 100 years at the most [122 for Jeanne Calment according to Wikipedia on 19Mar2010].

That's why evolution is defined as a religion - you have to have faith in what you cannot observe and test.

Thanks for your reply.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by krobbyzw

That's why evolution is defined as a religion - you have to have faith in what you cannot observe and test.

Thanks for your reply.

You're welcome.

However, I disagree with your statement. Evolution and the big bang are theories accepted by most scientists because they are based on mountains of tested evidence. Religion, however, is based on faith in ancient stories of the supernatural passed down for thousands of years.

Example: Even though there is no empirical evidence that Satan lurks in the shadows, most Christians continue to believe he does. That's called faith. Unlike science, faith requires no evidence.

Science is not a religion because if science discovers new evidence on a theory, it changes its position. Religion, on the other hand, rarely changes in light of new evidence or lack of evidence which is more likely the case.

Some Christians undermine evolution by calling it a religion because they believe if people see evolution as just another religion, then maybe people will be less willing to accept evolution as fact just as Christians are unwilling to see other religions as fact.

Recent research, however, may be discovering evidence that it could be in our biological human make-up to believe that there is "something out there" that we can't see, or hear. This means that beliefs in the "unknown" may actually be genetic. In other words, the sense of ancient, cave-dwelling humans that there was "something out there," may be part of the natural selection process to protect our species.

For example, a million years ago if you walked away from the campfire at night and something attacked you, you were unlikely to survive. If you feared the unknown and stayed by the fire, you were more likely to survive and produce offspring. Over the next million years, those who feared the unknown and survived continued to produce offspring.

During this same time, the belief that there's "something out there" that can't be seen or heard may have evolved into a belief in the supernatural, the fear of an angry god, and evil force, and eventually religion.

But this is just a theory subject to change from new evidence.


Rick

[krobbyzw]

Hi Rick, I do see that the 'mountains of tested evidence' that evolutionists refer to are normally the fossils that creationists point to as evidence of a global flood. Do you have any other examples of evolutionary evidence? Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

If you are serious about empirical evidence that Satan is lurking in the shadows, ask the satanists that have genuinely 'sold their souls' to him and faithfully attend black mass, etc. I have not personally done that, but I have read books by ex-satanists who describe what goes on there. I would recommend you read the books first before you meet them though, I would say they seriously have no respect for human life and may abuse any relationship they set up with you. Please be warned.

I do agree with on on religion not changing though. I would that is because when an all-knowing, all seeing, all-powerful Creator of the universe who can see the end from the beginning tells you something, He will tell you the truth from the start, so there is no reason for the story to change.

Good talking to you!

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by krobbyzw

Cool, thanks, Pablo. Have you had the time to check out Answers in Genesis or Creation Science evangelism?

I have not had a chance to check this out. I will have to do so.

I wondered if you thought Jesus was merely 'conveying ideas rather than give facts' when He said 'I am the way, the truth and the life.'

I think that statement is an major principle of the Bible. A principle is much more substantial than a simple fact. Whether Jesus actually said those exact words doesn't make any difference. I believe that the Bible tells us what God wants us to know, whether it be in figurative or literal language.

I can see the point that if we 'chip away' too much at the book of Genesis by defining it as 'stories' then we deny the literal history of it. If we do that, then it becomes easier to dismiss more and more of the Bible as 'not necessarily factual' and that, I would say, works to Satan's advantage.

I feel that if we take the Bible literally, we must start "chipping away" at it. When a literalist comes across the contradictions in the Bible they must choose what to believe and what to discount. For example did Judas hang himself or throw himself off of a cliff? The Gospels have different stories of this event. They can't both be factual. Literalist have to ignore one of the events.

The flood is a good example of the impossibility of a literal interpretation. If the flood happened around 3500BC, which is just a second in geologic terms, we would see evidence of it all over the earth. Why is there no evidence? The Americas were inhabited thousands of years before 3500 BC. Why were native Americans not destroyed in the flood? How did Noah get all the animals of the earth on the ark when many animals did not even live in the Middle East? Trying to explain the flood literally brings up a multitude of problems. A figurative interpretation of the story eliminates the need to make up false "science" to explain things. It allows one to focus on what message is God trying to show us in this section of Genesis.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by krobbyzw

If you are serious about empirical evidence that Satan is lurking in the shadows, ask the satanists that have genuinely 'sold their souls' to him and faithfully attend black mass, etc. I have not personally done that, but I have read books by ex-satanists who describe what goes on there. I would recommend you read the books first before you meet them though, I would say they seriously have no respect for human life and may abuse any relationship they set up with you. Please be warned.

The fact that people believe they have sold their souls to the Devil is not empirical evidence that the Devil exists anymore than selling one's soul to Bigfoot means that Bigfoot exists. It makes me wonder however, how exactly one sells his or her soul to anything. What do they get in return besides a lot of wasted time?

As for meeting with a Satanist, I have no interest in doing that. But if I ever do, my advice may be for them to seek maturity.

As for evidence of evolution, there are volumes and volumes of information on this, way too much to list on a forum thread. If you've ever read anything on natural selection however, you may find it easily explains how humans and animals evolved.

And as for the great flood story in the Bible, there is growing evidence that around 5,000 years ago a meteor slammed into the Indian Ocean causing a huge tsunami that devastated the areas surrounding the impact. Interestingly, of the ancient civilizations that lived in the areas around the Indian Ocean, many have creation stories about "the great flood."

Rick

[krobbyzw]

Hi Pablo,

Thanks again for your reply.

"For example did Judas hang himself or throw himself off of a cliff? The Gospels have different stories of this event. They can't both be factual."
Let me know if http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#79 does not answer this question for you adequately.

"The flood is a good example of the impossibility of a literal interpretation. If the flood happened around 3500BC, which is just a second in geologic terms, we would see evidence of it all over the earth. Why is there no evidence?"
Creationists will tell you fossils and oil are the evidence.

"The Americas were inhabited thousands of years before 3500 BC."
According to who? Would be interested to know.

"Why were native Americans not destroyed in the flood?"
In my understanding, Native Americans migrated there after the flood. If you feel this is not possible, please let me know why.

"How did Noah get all the animals of the earth on the ark when many animals did not even live in the Middle East?"
How do you know what animals did and didn't live in the Middle East 4400 years ago?

"Trying to explain the flood literally brings up a multitude of problems."
What other problems can you think of?

Thanks Pablo, enjoy your day.

[krobbyzw]

Hi Rick,
Thanks for your answers!

"What do they get in return besides a lot of wasted time?"
As far as I understand, they do get as much money as they want, as much power as they want, as much sex as they want and as many narcotics as they want. Certainly an immature life, as you pointed out, however, you will agree that we have some immature people on this planet.

"If you've ever read anything on natural selection however, you may find it easily explains how humans and animals evolved."
Natural selection, in my understanding, does not establish any beneficial mutations. Have a look at Kent Hovind's 7 free DVDs for more on this.

"And as for the great flood story in the Bible, there is growing evidence that around 5,000 years ago a meteor slammed into the Indian Ocean causing a huge tsunami that devastated the areas surrounding the impact. Interestingly, of the ancient civilizations that lived in the areas around the Indian Ocean, many have creation stories about "the great flood.""
--Cool! Would you let me know of any websites that cover the story? Have heard that the Chinese language has been influenced by it too. Would you say that China is far from the Indian Ocean? The water only has to get over Bangladesh, Burma, etc in the meteor version of the great flood, and covers the entire planet in the Genesis version, so admittedly quite a difference. Have heard another flood legend that the Totlec Indians of Mexico have – certainly further away from the Indian Ocean. The Hovind theory, interestingly, involves a meteor as well.

Good talking with you!