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]

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

Sally if it were true, and this interpretation was crystal clear, I myself would accept the biblical error... I'm just not convinced, like the way you are, about this exact interpretation..

Would you acknowledge you yourself have your own point of view, that can lead you to interpret things that way you want?

Do you have biases Sally?

[Danmark]

Sally if it were true, and this interpretation was crystal clear, I myself would accept the biblical error... I'm just not convinced, like the way you are, about this exact interpretation..

Would you acknowledge you yourself have your own point of view, that can lead you to interpret things that way you want?

Do you have biases Sally?

Everyone has biases. That is not the question. The question is 'What biases or so strong as to disable the pursuit of truth?"

The bias that the Bible is the infallible 'word of God' is one such truth disabling bias.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 31 by Tart]

You see, the truth has nothing to do with SallyF's point of view.
It isn't about what she believes, or feels about it.
It is about what can be shown to satisfy multiple unbiased observers.

It would be nice if a JD would address the topic of conversation, objectively, for example, so that no matter whom reads... everyone would agree that the topic is being talked about, and not people's opinions.

[Tart]

I mean it seems reasonable to believe that they were talking about rain and clouds... That would be something they knew was in the sky... And the fact of the matter is, is that they would have had absolutely no knowledge of the water that is above the atmosphere.... Why would they even come to conclude something like this, which they had no knowledge of? I think it would be far more reasonable to believe they were talking about precipitation, which they would have had knowledge of...

[Tcg]

Sally if it were true, and this interpretation was crystal clear, I myself would accept the biblical error...

It is crystal clear. Rather than diverting attention from this fact by questioning what you presume to be biases of others, you should address the text as SallyF has.

You were going to research the ancient text further in an attempt to find a smoking gun that proved your point. What happened to that research?


Tcg

[Tart]

Sally if it were true, and this interpretation was crystal clear, I myself would accept the biblical error...

It is crystal clear. Rather than diverting attention from this fact by questioning what you presume to be biases of others, you should address the text as SallyF has.

You were going to research the ancient text further in an attempt to find a smoking gun that proved your point. What happened to that research?


Tcg

I found two words, in ancient Hebrew, that have been translated as "above" in the Old Testament (there may be more)…

The one in question with our verse is 'al
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... /al-3.html

Another is Ma'al
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... aal-3.html


And according to the definitions of 'al, we can certainly interpret this verse as being "together with" the firmament (atmosphere), unlike what you guys are insisting, that it can not be translated as being within the atmosphere insead of above it...

Here is the definition given for 'al, the word used in Genesis 1:7

`al
Definition
1. upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... /al-3.html


And apparently the King Games Version has translated this word 48 times, and includes "in" as a translation

King James Word Usage - Total: 48
upon, in, on, over, by, for, both, beyond, through, throughout, against, beside, forth, off, from off

[Danmark]

Sally if it were true, and this interpretation was crystal clear, I myself would accept the biblical error...

It is crystal clear. Rather than diverting attention from this fact by questioning what you presume to be biases of others, you should address the text as SallyF has.

You were going to research the ancient text further in an attempt to find a smoking gun that proved your point. What happened to that research?


Tcg

I found two words, in ancient Hebrew, that have been translated as "above" in the Old Testament (there may be more)…

The one in question with our verse is 'al
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... /al-3.html

Another is Ma'al
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... aal-3.html


And according to the definitions of 'al, we can certainly interpret this verse as being "together with" the firmament (atmosphere), unlike what you guys are insisting, that it can not be translated as being within the atmosphere insead of above it...

Here is the definition given for 'al, the word used in Genesis 1:7

`al
Definition
1. upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... /al-3.html


And apparently the King Games Version has translated this word 48 times, and includes "in" as a translation

King James Word Usage - Total: 48
upon, in, on, over, by, for, both, beyond, through, throughout, against, beside, forth, off, from off

Whether you call it the King James version or "King Games" does not matter. Neither do the nuances of translation re: the firmament being above, beyond, or within. It is clear that the Genesis creation versions, both of t hem, reflect man's view of the world 3000 years acg, not 'God's.' That argument was lost when the order of creation and the claim it was done in 6 days. Genesis is not the "Word of God," and should not be judged as such. It is an ancient account of what men thought, not what actually is.

This constant and hopeless effort to show the Genesis account is perfect and from god is not only misplaced, it denigrates the greatness of the Torah by holding it to an irrelevant and incorrect standard.

[Tart]

Sally if it were true, and this interpretation was crystal clear, I myself would accept the biblical error...

It is crystal clear. Rather than diverting attention from this fact by questioning what you presume to be biases of others, you should address the text as SallyF has.

You were going to research the ancient text further in an attempt to find a smoking gun that proved your point. What happened to that research?


Tcg

I found two words, in ancient Hebrew, that have been translated as "above" in the Old Testament (there may be more)…

The one in question with our verse is 'al
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... /al-3.html

Another is Ma'al
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... aal-3.html


And according to the definitions of 'al, we can certainly interpret this verse as being "together with" the firmament (atmosphere), unlike what you guys are insisting, that it can not be translated as being within the atmosphere insead of above it...

Here is the definition given for 'al, the word used in Genesis 1:7

`al
Definition
1. upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicon ... /al-3.html


And apparently the King Games Version has translated this word 48 times, and includes "in" as a translation

King James Word Usage - Total: 48
upon, in, on, over, by, for, both, beyond, through, throughout, against, beside, forth, off, from off

Whether you call it the King James version or "King Games" does not matter. Neither do the nuances of translation re: the firmament being above, beyond, or within. It is clear that the Genesis creation versions, both of t hem, reflect man's view of the world 3000 years acg, not 'God's.' That argument was lost when the order of creation and the claim it was done in 6 days. Genesis is not the "Word of God," and should not be judged as such. It is an ancient account of what men thought, not what actually is.

This constant and hopeless effort to show the Genesis account is perfect and from god is not only misplaced, it denigrates the greatness of the Torah by holding it to an irrelevant and incorrect standard.

Well I agree to an extent. We should interpret it to understand what is true. If it is some kind of parable, we should interpret it as such. If it is literal, we should interpret it as such. If it is historical, if it is mythological, or if it is down right lies, of false assertions, we should interpret it as such. Likewise, if it is inspired by God, it should be interpreted as such, in which case id point to Jesus as the Christ as the cornerstone of evidence.

Id like to point out, there is two kinds of people who interpret this stuff strictly as literal, some very hard-lined fundamental Christians, and atheists... In fact, atheists take it to an all kind of extreme, even further then the fundamentals...

[Danmark]

Well I agree to an extent. We should interpret it to understand what is true. If it is some kind of parable, we should interpret it as such. If it is literal, we should interpret it as such. If it is historical, if it is mythological, or if it is down right lies, of false assertions, we should interpret it as such...

Id like to point out, there is two kinds of people who interpret this stuff strictly as literal, some very hard-lined fundamental Christians, and atheists... In fact, atheists take it to an all kind of extreme, even further then the fundamentals...

It may be true that atheists and other non believers hold Biblical literalists to their claims. It's an easier argument to deal with the literalists since their claims are more easily shown to be absurd.

However, my experience has been that most atheists reject the literal interpretation of the Bible. Even atheists can accept some of the human wisdom that is in the Bible and can and do accept the literary value of much of the Bible. Atheists simply reject the supernatural claims, the claims of the existence of a ridiculous anthropomorphic version of a 'god.'

[Tart]

Well I agree to an extent. We should interpret it to understand what is true. If it is some kind of parable, we should interpret it as such. If it is literal, we should interpret it as such. If it is historical, if it is mythological, or if it is down right lies, of false assertions, we should interpret it as such...

Id like to point out, there is two kinds of people who interpret this stuff strictly as literal, some very hard-lined fundamental Christians, and atheists... In fact, atheists take it to an all kind of extreme, even further then the fundamentals...

It may be true that atheists and other non believers hold Biblical literalists to their claims. It's an easier argument to deal with the literalists since their claims are more easily shown to be absurd.

However, my experience has been that most atheists reject the literal interpretation of the Bible. Even atheists can accept some of the human wisdom that is in the Bible and can and do accept the literary value of much of the Bible. Atheists simply reject the supernatural claims, the claims of the existence of a ridiculous anthropomorphic version of a 'god.'

Ya well even in this case, you guys are insisting on an all literal interpretation, when questioned on how to interpret the Bible (and even on translated words)...