Genesis 1:1

[StuartJ]

In the beginning Elohim/Theos/God created the heavens and the earth.

If we can't get past this very first verse, we can't claim legitimacy for another mote of biblical writing.

Do the Elohim exist ...?

Did they do the creating ...?

When was the beginning ...?

What are the heavens and the earth ...?

Who wrote that verse ...?

Can we back ANY of Gen 1:1 with anything other than faith and quotations from the same writings ...?

Because if we can't, we have to be honest and admit it.

And nit-picking over the finer details of what the questions may mean, or critiquing science, are just diversionary tactics.

[marco]

Gen. 1:1 is a philosophical statement. "In the beginning" refers the beginning of the account, or the beginning as it relates to His people.

We attach various meanings to the phrase "in the beginning" depending not on the author's intention but on our own sophistication. It is almost the function of art to glorify the simple. It hardly matters what meaning we give provided we accept the account is a poetic description of events that did not occur.

It can be backed up with philosophical arguments relating to the nature of human psychology.

This is like hiring a good lawyer to rid someone of a charge. The arguments used become more important than the crime itself. Philosophy can change black to white and often does. I have read how the Koran is filled with modern science that Muhammad had no awareness of. What kind of society believes that some wandering wizard from the sandstorm darkness of quasi-history wrote an account of terrestrial origins, including a description of the deeds of the first Earth residents? Is this not humans abandoning their own intelligent progress and placing trust in heaven's orchards? If fall there was, this is its re-enactment.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

You still haven't shown that the Elohim exist ...

Or that they created anything.

And you are straying off topic.

Many folks still believe "the Bible" is the inerrant "Word of God" and we not only "should", but we "must" take it literally
...

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html

[marco]

The Jesuits - I suggest - know perfectly well they are dealing with ancient creation mythology right here.

There is merit in selling magic beans if there is a market for them I suppose. It must be a horrible realisation to have devoted your brainpower to works of wonder only to find that gold was indeed base metal. That would start a person looking for some alchemy to change nonsense into wisdom, a trade that is well-practised today.


It is not the Jesuit's task to find truth but to simulate and explain it.

[bluethread]

Gen. 1:1 is a philosophical statement. "In the beginning" refers the beginning of the account, or the beginning as it relates to His people.

We attach various meanings to the phrase "in the beginning" depending not on the author's intention but on our own sophistication. It is almost the function of art to glorify the simple. It hardly matters what meaning we give provided we accept the account is a poetic description of events that did not occur.

The problem is that the OP is not accepting of a poetic description. That said, it appears you are leading into a nihilistic argument. If poetry is of no value, why do we have poets?

It can be backed up with philosophical arguments relating to the nature of human psychology.

This is like hiring a good lawyer to rid someone of a charge. The arguments used become more important than the crime itself. Philosophy can change black to white and often does. I have read how the Koran is filled with modern science that Muhammad had no awareness of. What kind of society believes that some wandering wizard from the sandstorm darkness of quasi-history wrote an account of terrestrial origins, including a description of the deeds of the first Earth residents? Is this not humans abandoning their own intelligent progress and placing trust in heaven's orchards? If fall there was, this is its re-enactment.

What is wrong with having a good lawyer? Again, you are taking a rather nihlistic appraoch to not only philosophy, but also law. It is true that sophistry can prevert both reason and justice. However, as with science, which is a philosophical endevor, both law and philosophy are subject to the constraints of logic and consistency. Regarding your example, I am not a proponent of look for any scientific explanatons in ancient literature. That would be no better than using science to "disprove" ancient literature. They both silly endeavors.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

You still haven't shown that the Elohim exist ...

Or that they created anything.

And you are straying off topic.

Many folks still believe "the Bible" is the inerrant "Word of God" and we not only "should", but we "must" take it literally
...

https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-literal.html

Many folks believe any number of things. I don't see how the expectations of others require even a response, let alone affirmative action.

My justifications for a creator deity are philosophical. Since you have disparaged philosophy, while providing no justification for such disparagement, an explanation would appear to be a waste of time. So, I ask again, why are you so opposed to Philosophy, Poetry and Psychology? Also, since you have not provided sources or quotations justifying your claim that Gen. 1:1 was a statement of "fact" for some 2000 years, I presume you are withdrawing that assertion.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

I don't disparage philosophy.

I challange those who try to use it as a cover for folklore and fantasy.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 15 by bluethread]

I don't disparage philosophy.

I challange those who try to use it as a cover for folklore and fantasy.

What do you think is the basis of folklore and fantasy? How do you suppose folklore and fantasy are able to stand the test of time?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

Way off topic

Stay with Marco's magic beans

[marco]

The problem is that the OP is not accepting of a poetic description. That said, it appears you are leading into a nihilistic argument. If poetry is of no value, why do we have poets?

I don't follow the direction of your argument. I am accepting a poetic description. I don't see what I have in common with say Russian nihilism of the 19th century. All I have discarded is a literal take on Genesis. If we accept it's poetry, I can happily read it -I might even make the first few verses into a sonnet or a villanelle to show my lack of prejudice.

What is wrong with having a good lawyer? Again, you are taking a rather nihlistic approach to not only philosophy, but also law.

I suspect you're using "nihilistic" in a sense that's scompletely foreign to me if not to the dictionary. It sounds rather as if I am being accused of cynicism towards philosophy and law.

If we regard Satan as a piece of poetry to explain evil, we can happily see how effective the metaphor is in various circumstances.

[Tcg]

What are the heavens and the earth ...?

From the author's perspective, the earth is simply what they are standing on and can see for a few miles. There is no reason to think they had any concept of earth beyond this limited view.

The heavens were thought of as a canvas with a few lights stuck on here and there. One again it is based on what the author could see with their naked eye. They had no concept of our solar system much less the universe beyond.

It is of course much easier for the faithful to claim this as poetry rather than admit the author knew almost nothing about the earth, nothing of our solar system, and not even an inkling about the universe. At least they avoid the obvious dishonesty of claiming this is a description of what we now know about the universe.