Evidence supporting Jesus did not die on a cross...

[Omega]

Although most of Genesis is, for obvious reasons, intended by the writers not to be taken literally,

Why would you say that?

Are we to believe that days existed before planets and stars existed? Or that God was somehow limited in his power to create existence in an instant and have to create it over a matter of "days"? Or extrapolate that humans lived alongside dinosaurs? And on top of that, which creation account are we to choose?

Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.

[hefdaddy42]

Are we to believe that days existed before planets and stars existed?

I don't, but apparently the author(s) of Genesis did.

Or that God was somehow limited in his power to create existence in an instant and have to create it over a matter of "days"?

That seems to be the intent of the author of Genesis 1, since God had to rest on the 7th day.  That sounds like a limit.

Or extrapolate that humans lived alongside dinosaurs?

What do dinosaurs have to do with Genesis?  The author of Genesis didn't know anything about dinosaurs.

And on top of that, which creation account are we to choose?

Well, there are certainly two given in Genesis.  Choose whichever one you want, or accept the truth of both.

Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.

The authors wouldn't have differentiated between theological truths and historical truths as we do, and scientific laws or details simply didn't enter into the discussion, as they had no conception of "science." 

[GuineaPig]

I can believe that Hebrews 2500 years ago weren't as scientifically literate as we are today.

Occam's Razor is your friend.

[Omega]

Are we to believe that days existed before planets and stars existed?

I don't, but apparently the author(s) of Genesis did.

Or that God was somehow limited in his power to create existence in an instant and have to create it over a matter of "days"?

That seems to be the intent of the author of Genesis 1, since God had to rest on the 7th day.  That sounds like a limit.

Or extrapolate that humans lived alongside dinosaurs?

What do dinosaurs have to do with Genesis?  The author of Genesis didn't know anything about dinosaurs.

And on top of that, which creation account are we to choose?

Well, there are certainly two given in Genesis.  Choose whichever one you want, or accept the truth of both.

Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.

The authors wouldn't have differentiated between theological truths and historical truths as we do, and scientific laws or details simply didn't enter into the discussion, as they had no conception of "science."

Then it seems that we largely agree. It's not necessary to interpret Genesis literally in order to be called a Christian though (as you may or may not agree).

[hefdaddy42]

Yes, I agree.  I don't believe it literally, although I certainly believe the Truth that it conveys.  Something can be true without being LITERALLY true.

For example, if an artist created a sculpture depicting Abraham Lincoln holding an axe over the ankle fetters of a slave, would that sculpture be depicting truth?  Of course.  But not literally.

So also with the beginning chapters of Genesis.

[Nick]

Who decides what is literal and what is not?

[rumborak]

I also have to say that once Adam and Eve are freed from literal interpretation, it becomes a far more interesting story. A misogynist one, but nonetheless interesting.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

Who decides what is literal and what is not?

apparently DTF does

[rumborak]

Like with every other book, the reader does. They're stories, and everybody interprets them through their personal context.

rumborak

[Omega]

Yes, I agree.  I don't believe it literally, although I certainly believe the Truth that it conveys.  Something can be true without being LITERALLY true.

For example, if an artist created a sculpture depicting Abraham Lincoln holding an axe over the ankle fetters of a slave, would that sculpture be depicting truth?  Of course.  But not literally.

So also with the beginning chapters of Genesis.

I agree.

[Nick]

Like with every other book, the reader does. They're stories, and everybody interprets them through their personal context.

rumborak

Okay, but if every single person can determine what is true and what is not strictly true how can we have any organized religion? In Catholicism especially I figure there has to be an authority on such things.

[rumborak]

I would argue that organized religion is the worst kind. The Catholic Church has kept its members in the dark for millennia.

rumborak

[Nick]

I would tend to agree, but I'm assuming that most religious folk from the forum will tend to claim to be of a particular faith, and as a matter of their churches I would be interested to know who is in charge of saying what is the literal word of god and what needs to be interpreted a certain way.

[Scheavo]

The guy whose giving all those speeches.

[yeshaberto]

in my reading of Scripture, it seems pretty obvious what is literal and what is figurative.  I can't think of any right now, but I trust there are exceptions.  but in general, the context seems pretty clear

[hefdaddy42]

Who decides what is literal and what is not?

Some of that does depend on the reader.  Which makes many, many interpretations possible.

However, at a certain point it is most beneficial to simply set aside the literal/figurative question.  You say, "regardless of whether or not the events of this story actually happened exactly as depicted, what is the point of the story?  What is the story saying?"

[Nick]

I understand that, but if I say that Jesus being the son of god is figurative, that kinda throws a bit of a monkey wrench into everything, hence why I feel there is some need to an authority on the subject. To me how literal you take the bible can make it anything from the literal word of god to a collection of fairy tales, and that's a bit broad of a brush for such an important work.

I suppose though that what I'm getting at is probably dragging things a bit off topic, so maybe I'll get my thoughts together and make another thread at some point.

[rumborak]

I see your point, and it gets especially tricky when a section is obviously not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong.

rumborak

[bosk1]

it gets especially tricky when a section is obviously not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong.

rumborak

I notice you like to throw things like that out there a lot as if they're true.  Care to share any examples of these "not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong" sections?

[rumborak]

I don't see a discussion between the two of us going anywhere else than me pointing out examples, and you quoting the usual stretched explanations. I think we've both been there one too many times.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

it gets especially tricky when a section is obviously not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong.

rumborak

I notice you like to throw things like that out there a lot as if they're true.  Care to share any examples of these "not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong" sections?

Well, stuff like  Exodus isn't meant to be figurative.  It's supposed to be a history of the nation of Israel.  An account that doesn't mesh with actual history.

[rumborak]

I think geological records could also tell if the Earth was at some point completely submerged in water. Or that all organisms got into a bottleneck of only a few survivors and the repopulated the Earth. Problem is, the flood story is hardly meant figuratively.

rumborak

[bosk1]

it gets especially tricky when a section is obviously not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong.

rumborak

I notice you like to throw things like that out there a lot as if they're true.  Care to share any examples of these "not meant figuratively, but nonetheless wrong" sections?

Well, stuff like  Exodus isn't meant to be figurative.  It's supposed to be a history of the nation of Israel.  An account that doesn't mesh with actual history.

If I recall, your argument boils down to, "we haven't found evidence of the Hebrew people at Goshen, so Exodus must be wrong."  Lack of discovery of physical evidence of one part of the narrative does not render it "wrong."  Got anything new?

[bosk1]

I think geological records could also tell if the Earth was at some point completely submerged in water.

They sure seem to.  E.g., fossils of sea creatures on most of the highest mountain tops of the world (saw some for myself at the top of the Rockies not long ago).  Or, e.g., strata of the earth being layered exactly like the layers we saw formed at Spirit Lake in Washington when Mt. St. Helens erupted and caused the lake waters to violently change the strata on some of the surrounding land to change dramatically, laying down layers of strata and causing a petrified forest, which we had previously assumed would have taken millennia to occur naturally.

[rumborak]

bosk, I think your understanding of geology is severely lacking if you think that's what the records indicate. Seriously, you can't just brush away the rest and just take the stuff you like.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

Or that he apparently doesn't believe in plate tectonics.

[bosk1]

Seriously, you can't just brush away the rest and just take the stuff you like.

You might do well to think on this statement.

[Scheavo]

I think geological records could also tell if the Earth was at some point completely submerged in water.

They sure seem to.  E.g., fossils of sea creatures on most of the highest mountain tops of the world (saw some for myself at the top of the Rockies not long ago).  Or, e.g., strata of the earth being layered exactly like the layers we saw formed at Spirit Lake in Washington when Mt. St. Helens erupted and caused the lake waters to violently change the strata on some of the surrounding land to change dramatically, laying down layers of strata and causing a petrified forest, which we had previously assumed would have taken millennia to occur naturally.

Those fossils got on the highest mountains cause those highest mountains used to be the sea floor. The evidence points towards that, it does not point towards the entire earth being under water.

Besides, there's not enough water on the planet to do what you suggest.

[Dark Castle]

On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything.  I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat.   It just is extremely illogical.  But a region of a place?  Yeah I could see that possibly.

[GuineaPig]

On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything.  I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat.   It just is extremely illogical.  But a region of a place?  Yeah I could see that possibly.

This is still illogical.  There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.

Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise.   Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.

[Dark Castle]

On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything.  I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat.   It just is extremely illogical.  But a region of a place?  Yeah I could see that possibly.

This is still illogical.  There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.

Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise.   Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.

Very true.  It'd make for a great sitcom though lol.

[rumborak]

On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything.  I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat.   It just is extremely illogical.  But a region of a place?  Yeah I could see that possibly.

This is still illogical.  There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.

Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise.   Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.

Weeelll, the Mediterranean Sea has seen rise and falls of the sea level because it's modulated by the strait of Gibraltar. If I lived on some Greek island surrounded by water and saw the water level rise steadily over a few years, I would look for an explanation.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything.  I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat.   It just is extremely illogical.  But a region of a place?  Yeah I could see that possibly.

This is still illogical.  There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.

Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise.   Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.

Weeelll, the Mediterranean Sea has seen rise and falls of the sea level because it's modulated by the strait of Gibraltar. If I lived on some Greek island surrounded by water and saw the water level rise steadily over a few years, I would look for an explanation.

rumborak

But not on the scale that the myth suggests.  We're not talking several meters, or dozens.  We're talking at the very least hundreds.  There's no way that could be limited to a single basin.

Besides, we'd know if an event like that happened.

[Scheavo]

On the whole Noah's arc business, I see it more of a region was flooded, and the animals in that region were saved if anything.  I've never really believed the whole world was flooded and EVERY species was put on a boat.   It just is extremely illogical.  But a region of a place?  Yeah I could see that possibly.

This is still illogical.  There's no physical process for non-eustatic sea level change on that sort of time-scale.

Besides, you'd still need a big-ass boat (bigger than is feasible) to get all the species of even a comparatively poor region, bio-diversity wise.   Nevermind that for obvious reasons they wouldn't co-operate or get along.

Weeelll, the Mediterranean Sea has seen rise and falls of the sea level because it's modulated by the strait of Gibraltar. If I lived on some Greek island surrounded by water and saw the water level rise steadily over a few years, I would look for an explanation.

rumborak

But not on the scale that the myth suggests.  We're not talking several meters, or dozens.  We're talking at the very least hundreds.  There's no way that could be limited to a single basin.

Besides, we'd know if an event like that happened.

Tsunamis, huge flash floods, perhaps the breaking of a glacier damn. Exaggerated? Ya, and it hardly proves "Noah's Flood" true, but it's possible imagine known events that could be unsettling to someone thousands of years ago, who has even less of an idea about whats going on than we do.

[Omega]

I think geological records could also tell if the Earth was at some point completely submerged in water. Or that all organisms got into a bottleneck of only a few survivors and the repopulated the Earth. Problem is, the flood story is hardly meant figuratively.

rumborak

Genesis 1-11 is actually considered what is referred to as mythological writing. And by that, I do not mean that it is a myth -- I mean that the writers wanted to convey theological and philosophical truths without much care for obeying historical or scientific laws. They were more concerned with conveying truth than historical or scientific details.

Also to note of the Flood narrative is that it is clearly inspired by the Epic of Gilgamesh of Ancient Babylon. Still even more interesting that geological research suggests that at some point in time about 7000 years ago, as the last ice age began to thaw, the Aegean sea rose to such a level that it carved into the Black sea suddenly, flooding over 60,000 square miles of land in as little as 300 days. Such a cataclysmic event would have killed thousands who settled the area and must have replaced countless more. It would have also inspired countless of stories of a seemingly global flood.