What can we gather from Genesis?

[marco]

Can we extract anything good from the Genesis account of creation? God apparently told Adam, the first human: "but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." He didn't say why he had planted poisonous berries in a perfect orchard. Adam seems to have lived on, having escaped the dangerous garden.


We can extract beautiful meanings from the tales of Hans Andersen, such as the Little Mermaid who learns that pleasure comes at a great price. From the story of Orpheus and Eurydice in Greek mythology we can understand that a man can enter his dark psyche to find something precious, only to have it snatched away.


Can we learn anything useful from the Genesis creation story?

If we accept the existence of Neanderthal man do we simply throw Genesis in the bucket?

[polonius]

What evidence would you need to have in order to know if the Biblical creation story is false?

There is alot of commentary about obvious contradiction in this narrative as a pure story,example being the double account of Adam's creation.The story talks about that which still is,ie,our created world. I have discounted the possibility of such an open text being false, by definition of the word.
As far as ancient writers and the instinct of oral tradition goes , I have more trust in their intuitive offering than I have with a more modern analysis of parts within my simple enquiries.That is my critical thinking take on this. Consider the world and life experience of the cultures and intelligences that provided this offering for us.

RESPONSE: Some believe in facts, some believe in nice but nonfactual stories.

"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching."

"Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

From Wikipedia

[Thomas123]

What evidence would you need to have in order to know if the Biblical creation story is false?

There is alot of commentary about obvious contradiction in this narrative as a pure story,example being the double account of Adam's creation.The story talks about that which still is,ie,our created world. I have discounted the possibility of such an open text being false, by definition of the word.
As far as ancient writers and the instinct of oral tradition goes , I have more trust in their intuitive offering than I have with a more modern analysis of parts within my simple enquiries.That is my critical thinking take on this. Consider the world and life experience of the cultures and intelligences that provided this offering for us.

RESPONSE: Some believe in facts, some believe in nice but nonfactual stories.

"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching."

"Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

From Wikipedia

Are you suggesting a dichotomy?
Dichotomy
a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.
"a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism"

If this is your reason for posting these definitions side by side, then I feel that you need to explain what their relationship is to each other. I see reason mentioned in both? Does that suggest that fideism is in fact defined as being 'unreasonable', if not by its outward expression, but in its lack of use of the human attribute of reason?


reason
1.a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.
"she asked him to return, but didn't give a reason"

2.the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

[bluegreenearth]

What evidence would you need to have in order to know if the Biblical creation story is false?

There is alot of commentary about obvious contradiction in this narrative as a pure story,example being the double account of Adam's creation.The story talks about that which still is,ie,our created world. I have discounted the possibility of such an open text being false, by definition of the word.
As far as ancient writers and the instinct of oral tradition goes , I have more trust in their intuitive offering than I have with a more modern analysis of parts within my simple enquiries.That is my critical thinking take on this. Consider the world and life experience of the cultures and intelligences that provided this offering for us.

So, are you indicating that there is no evidence that would cause you to be less confident in this belief?

[Thomas123]

What evidence would you need to have in order to know if the Biblical creation story is false?

There is alot of commentary about obvious contradiction in this narrative as a pure story,example being the double account of Adam's creation.The story talks about that which still is,ie,our created world. I have discounted the possibility of such an open text being false, by definition of the word.
As far as ancient writers and the instinct of oral tradition goes , I have more trust in their intuitive offering than I have with a more modern analysis of parts within my simple enquiries.That is my critical thinking take on this. Consider the world and life experience of the cultures and intelligences that provided this offering for us.

So, are you indicating that there is no evidence that would cause you to be less confident in this belief?

Your original question was this.
bluegreenearth ;What evidence would you need to have in order to know if the Biblical creation story is false?
Let's assume that this is a new question that takes into account my posts since then. To answer your question directly, the answer is yes, I would change my beliefs and diminish my confidence levels in the Genesis presentation. New evidence that I was previously, totally unaware of , that appeared to almost beyond doubt, show Genesis as being totally unlikely in its purport.

If it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that man was not a descendant from primates, I ,personally, would find Genesis unnecessary. Dont ask me why that is just find me someone with proof of this fact. I find it difficult to imagine our created world without Darwinian Theory and I think it stands to the astuteness of the early compilers of this narrative that it was compiled without this assist. There was probably,Neolithic and Iron Age, herdsmanship and arable farming nought, dependended upon in lieu of the Evolution reveal.

[bluegreenearth]

Your original question was this.
bluegreenearth ;What evidence would you need to have in order to know if the Biblical creation story is false?
Let's assume that this is a new question that takes into account my posts since then. To answer your question directly, the answer is yes. New evidence that I was previously, totally unaware of , that appeared to almost beyond doubt, show Genesis as being totally unlikely in its purport.

If it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that man was not a descendant from primates, I ,personally, would find Genesis unnecessary, unnecessary. Dont ask me why that is just find me someone with proof of this fact. I find it difficult to imagine our created world without Darwinian Theory and I think it stands to the astuteness of the early compilers of this narrative that it was compiled without this assist. There was probably,Neolithic and Iron Age, herdsmanship and arable farming nought, dependended upon in lieu of the Evolution reveal.

I'm having trouble understanding your response as the language was a bit incoherent. Would you mind providing a clarification? Could you describe what that evidence would be in detail?

[Thomas123]

If it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that man was not a descendant from primates, I ,personally, would find Genesis unnecessary

[bluegreenearth]

If it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that man was not a descendant from primates, I ,personally, would find Genesis unnecessary

Proving man and other primates did not share a common ancestor would only demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution was false. This would not indicate anything about whether the claims in the book of Genesis are true or false. What evidence would demonstrate the claims in Genesis are false?

[Thomas123]

Sorry,bluegreenearth, but you asked me a question, then I gave you an answer, and now you repeat an almost identical version of the original question?

[bluegreenearth]

Sorry,bluegreenearth, but you asked me, then I told you, then you didn't like my answer?

Perhaps I'm still not understanding your answer. How would demonstrating that man and other primates did NOT share a common ancestor provide you with a justification to find the book of Genesis unnecessary?

[Thomas123]

Sorry,bluegreenearth, but you asked me, then I told you, then you didn't like my answer?

Perhaps I'm still not understanding your answer. How would demonstrating that man and other primates did NOT share a common ancestor provide you with a justification to find the book of Genesis unnecessary?

Answer
Genesis declares itself to be about the start of time. It starts with...in the beginning...
The characters are Adam and Eve. We watch these characters move from their inception through the various stages of evolvement to being stand alone humans as we would regard same,today. If scientific evolutionary discovery had produced another formula for human life I would discard Genesis as being beautifully foolish. The long list of compilers of this narrative, back through oral tradition, found the same answer given to us with Darwin.If it was otherwise, I would consider soliloquies instead.