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.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

I am afraid the 14 billion year old universe theory completely destroys the Garden of Eden story.
It is rather like using Cronos and Rhea as justification for Christianity.

I do find it amusing how seamlessly religious folks invoke the science creation story in support of their own, when it shows just how mythological Genesis really is.

Food for thought.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

Not so long ago, many atheists mocked and rejected the very idea of a beginning to the universe, explicitly because of the overt theistic implications of such a creation event. They all preferred static/eternal models for the opposite implication: 'no creation= no creator'

'in the beginning...' the very first verse, as controversial, unscientific, and even 'repugnant' as may be- turned out to be true.

Yes of course it raises more interesting questions about the nature of the creator etc... read on!

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

Not so long ago, many atheists mocked and rejected the very idea of a beginning to the universe, explicitly because of the overt theistic implications of such a creation event. They all preferred static/eternal models for the opposite implication: 'no creation= no creator'

'in the beginning...' the very first verse, as controversial, unscientific, and even 'repugnant' as may be- turned out to be true.

Yes of course it raises more interesting questions about the nature of the creator etc... read on!

Would you care to back up your claim that 'not so long ago that atheists mocked and reject the very beginning to the universe'.

[bluethread]

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.

I was speaking to your assertion that any meaning can be rightfully inferred. If every meaning is of equal value, then it has no meaning. I am not asserting that Gen. chpt. 1 has a particular meaning to me, I am saying that it has a particular meaning based on historical, grammatical and cultural criteria. With regard to my assertion, your assertion implies that history, grammar and culture are not significant criteria. Since I can think of no other criteria that would be significant, one would be left with no way of establishing the meaning of any piece of literature.

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.

To the one who believes something to be meaningless, such a view might be considered simply cynicism. However, to one who does see value in something, the view that such a thing is meaningless as nihilism.

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

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

Way off topic

Stay with Marco's magic beans

No, it isn't. You are implying, if not outright saying, that Gen. 1:1 is folklore and fantasy. If that is true, knowing the the nature of folklore and fantasy is integral to the discussion.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

Do the Elohim exist ...?

Possibly they do. I have come to the present understanding that these are aspects of the mind of The Earth Entity and are essentially who we were before we began our human experience.

Did they do the creating ...?

As per my understanding in answer to the first question, yes - they did the creating related to biological forms existing on this planet.

When was the beginning ...?

It is my understanding that the answer to the Q would be relative to the entity. If one was asking 'What was the beginning for the Elohim?' the answer would be different to the question 'What was the beginning for the Human?'. Since the source documentation is human, the question probably relates to the beginning of humans.
In that, 'when' is not something I find necessary to have answered. "Why?" is the better question.

What are the heavens and the earth ...?

We know what 'the Earth' is. The idea of 'the heavens' comes from OOBEs and NDEs specifically, and are often related to "going up into" so also relate to the rest of the Universe. The Heavens are both the Universe, and the alternate Universe.
Indeed, "The Heavens" are also related to an inward journey of deep introspection and connection with the greater mind...

Who wrote that verse ...?

A Human.

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

I translate the writ to back up my own understanding of metaphysics, knowing that not everyone interprets it the same way as I do. As far as faith goes, there appears to be no need to employ it specific to my own understanding of metaphysics.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 36 by William]

I translate the writ to back up my own understanding of metaphysics

Which goes nowhere in getting Genesis 1:1 outside the human imagination

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 17 by bluethread]

Way off topic

Stay with Marco's magic beans

No, it isn't. You are implying, if not outright saying, that Gen. 1:1 is folklore and fantasy. If that is true, knowing the the nature of folklore and fantasy is integral to the discussion.

Do the Elohim exist ...?

Did they do the creating ...?

How about we just try and stick with answering these two very basic questions.

They are quite simple.

Unless you are trying to dodge admitting you can't honestly answer in the affirmative ....

[bluethread]

Do the Elohim exist ...?

Did they do the creating ...?

How about we just try and stick with answering these two very basic questions.

They are quite simple.

Unless you are trying to dodge admitting you can't honestly answer in the affirmative ....

I believe Eloheim exists and that He did the creating. Now what?

[StuartJ]

Do the Elohim exist ...?

Did they do the creating ...?

How about we just try and stick with answering these two very basic questions.

They are quite simple.

Unless you are trying to dodge admitting you can't honestly answer in the affirmative ....

I believe Eloheim exists and that He did the creating. Now what?

You "believing" has nothing whatsoever to do with reality ....