Detailing Biblical Creation Mythology

[SallyF]

My Sunday school teachers and Bible class instructors used to quite happily go through the details of how "God" created the universe and everything in it.

I have noticed, in more recent years, that folks who still call themselves Christian avoid discussing the details of the two biblical creation mythologies.

They will go ON and On at length about the science of evolution, but not a squeak on the details in the "Word of God".

When Christians do not discuss the details of biblical creation, why would that be …?

[Tart]

Thanks for participating directly …!

For century after Christian century, the author of this mythology was largely believed to be "God" (the mythological Jehovah) through the medium of the almost certainly fictional Moses.

We now know we don't live in a dome of air in a water-filled universe.

This obliges Christians to declare a non-literal meaning to the creation mythology.

I have yet to see details of such.

wait, are you suggesting the ancient Hebrews had no idea they really didnt live in water? You think our science now a days shows that we dont literally live in water? And at some time in the past anyone thought like that...lololol... Im sorry this is just ridiculous...

You dont think the ancient Hebrews could understand from their perspective the difference between air and water? And at some point down the line, we figured it out?



Wouldnt it be more reasonable to believe this kind of interpretation is just wrong?

You've misunderstood the phrase I've bolded in SallyF's reply to you. It seems that she is referring to the ancient view of the universe represented in this diagram:



Of course the Hebrews knew they didn't live in water, but rather they belived there was a watery expanse above the sky.


Tcg

Yes perhaps i missunderstood.. Still im not sure that is what they truly believed, i am skeptical on this kind of interpretation

[Tart]

and I just read the literal Hebrew.. And perhaps they didnt even believe the waters were above the "firmament" (or atmosphere) but into the "firmament", like the literal translations from the Hebrew words indicates

here:
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInt ... f/gen1.pdf

which says:
(Genesis 1:7)
"...and he-is-separating between the waters which from under to (the) atmosphere and between the waters which from on to (the) atmosphere..."

Which would certainly be more reasonable to think water is in, or "on to" the atmosphere... Like rain...

it is possible they didnt say it was above, but "on to"... Which i bet you there is a Hebrew word for "above" that wasnt used.. Ill have to look into it later

[SallyF]

and I just read the literal Hebrew.. And perhaps they didnt even believe the waters were above the "firmament" (or atmosphere) but into the "firmament", like the literal translations from the Hebrew words indicates

here:
https://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInt ... f/gen1.pdf

which says:
(Genesis 1:7)
"...and he-is-separating between the waters which from under to (the) atmosphere and between the waters which from on to (the) atmosphere..."

Which would certainly be more reasonable to think water is in, or "on to" the atmosphere... Like rain...

it is possible they didnt say it was above, but "on to"... Which i bet you there is a Hebrew word for "above" that wasnt used.. Ill have to look into it later

For certain Christians this is the "Word of God" - not humans describing what it is they believe.

You seem to be telling us that this creation mythology is what certain Middle East humans believed the universe was literally like, and they are describing what it was literally like, and we just haven't translated this description correctly …


And you are scrambling for a Hebrew word that tells you what you WANT to hear …

Now that century after century of Christian belief is shown to be just plain wrong.

Please note carefully all the biblical references in the above diagram …

And the total absence of evidence of any sort for the input of "God" in these "scriptures".

And while you are focussed on having the literal meaning of the mythology mean what you want it to mean …

Not a soul has given us a peep about what the supposed non-literal meaning may be ….

But once again, thank you for participating and sticking with the OP.

[Tcg]

I have noticed, in more recent years, that folks who still call themselves Christian avoid discussing the details of the two biblical creation mythologies.

I found a source willing to discuss those details:

• Creation and Cosmogony in the Bible
  
  The main differences between the two accounts, whose sources reflect different epic traditions, are (1) the names of the deity: Genesis 1, ʾElohim; Genesis 2, YHWH; (2) in the first account the creation of plants (1:11ff., third day) precedes the creation of man (1:26, sixth day), but in the second before man there was no shrub in the field and the grains had not yet sprouted (2:5–7), trees being created only after the creation of man (2:8–9); (3) in Genesis 1:20–21, 24–25 animals were created before man, but in Genesis 2:19, after man; (4) the creation of man is repeated in the second account, but whereas in Genesis 1:27 male and female were created together, the woman was fashioned from a rib of the man in 2:21ff. The second account does not mention the creation of day and night, seas, luminaries, marine life, but commences immediately with the forming of man from the dust of the earth.
  
  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/cr ... -the-bible

This is obviously not a Christian source. Perhaps this will encourage some to address these details.


Tcg

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 22 by Tart]

It's quite telling that you claim to have found a source for the original meaning, and then ignore what your source states. You change one little letter, an "o" to an "i" and pretend the meaning is the same.

"On to" and "into" are two totally different concepts. Compare these two statements:

"I placed a hat onto my head."

"I placed a hat into my head"

These are two very different claims. For some reason, you want us to accept that the first actually means the second.


Tcg

[SallyF]

I have noticed, in more recent years, that folks who still call themselves Christian avoid discussing the details of the two biblical creation mythologies.

I found a source willing to discuss those details:

• Creation and Cosmogony in the Bible
  
  The main differences between the two accounts, whose sources reflect different epic traditions, are (1) the names of the deity:
  
  Genesis 1, ʾElohim;
  
  Genesis 2, YHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah;
  
  (2) in the first account the creation of plants (1:11ff., third day) precedes the creation of man (1:26, sixth day), but in the second before man there was no shrub in the field and the grains had not yet sprouted (2:5–7), trees being created only after the creation of man (2:8–9); (3) in Genesis 1:20–21, 24–25 animals were created before man, but in Genesis 2:19, after man; (4) the creation of man is repeated in the second account, but whereas in Genesis 1:27 male and female were created together, the woman was fashioned from a rib of the man in 2:21ff. The second account does not mention the creation of day and night, seas, luminaries, marine life, but commences immediately with the forming of man from the dust of the earth.
  
  https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/cr ... -the-bible

This is obviously not a Christian source. Perhaps this will encourage some to address these details.


Tcg

Bolding mine.


Good stuff …!

I posit …

The 2 creation myths are written by Middle East humans as literal explanations for the everyday folk …

Not a soul offers a shred that "God" had anything to do with them.

The folks who wrote them didn't know any better, I suggest, so they possibly sufficed as at least SOME sort of quasi-literal explanation for them too.

Under the literal layer, I offer, lie layers of genuine, human, historical political allegory.

Briefly:

Think of Creation One by the pre-Jewish Canaanite plural Elohim gods as ALSO an allegory of Canaanite social structure.

There is a Jehoist reformation.

The followers of the single, male Jehovah god write Creation Two into and over Creation One.

Creation Two is an allegory of the Jehoist Re-Creation of what we know as Jewish society.

The literal view of the contradictory creation myths remains for the everyday folks.

But so too does the absence of any evidence for "God" in them.

The literal view of a VAST amount of Christianity is - in my view - an embarrassment to many who still call themselves Christian.

I have offered a god-free, non-literal hypothesis for discussion.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 26 by SallyF]

Yes, different versions of God/gods performing the acts of creation is quite problematic. I wonder if any will attempt to resolve this issue.


Tcg

[Tart]

Do you guys believe it is possible that they were talking about the water in the sky? Clouds, rain, precipitation?

If not, how do you know?

[SallyF]

Do you guys believe it is possible that they were talking about the water in the sky? Clouds, rain, precipitation?

If not, how do you know?

NO …

I read the first biblical creation myth …

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

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


In my experience, it's a natural response when one has been brainwashed with Christianity, to read into this stuff what one WANTS to be there …

And when the "Word of God" is utter nonsense, it MUST be understood in a way other than how it is written.

Not a soul EVER demonstrates "God" had anything to do with this mythology.

It was written by humans who thought we lived in a dome in a water-filled universe.

It was a common notion



The biblical notion is just mythology

[Danmark]

When Christians do not discuss the details of biblical creation, why would that be …?

While I often discuss the biblical account of a creation with other Christians, I do shy away from discussing it with atheists.

The reason for this is that I have found that the majority of non-Christians who want to debate the creation account in Genesis wildly misrepresent that account. They insist that passage must be precisely literal. They ignore context and literary style in order to create a version of the story that they find most useful for attacking beliefs they disagree with.

Your 'examples' of 'wild misrepresentations' are hardly 'wild.' in fact, they are exactly those used by Christians. It is Christians who insist on a literal reading of Genesis. Over the years on this site I have seen many atheists who continually point out the literal interpretations insisted on by Christians make the case for creationism even more problematic. It is the literal approach and the ignoring of context and literary genres that is precisely the approach insisted upon by most Christians.

In any event, referring accurately to the text of Genesis as the basis for a claim is hardly a "wild misrepresentation." Certainly, taking a literary as opposed to a literal approach can harmonize the account in Genesis with the fact of evolution. But to do so is anathema to the views of many Christians on this forum.