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]

.

Ok, well in this discussion, it seems that the people who are claiming to know the exact interpretation is a few atheists insisting on their own interpretation... So maybe you should take up your beef with them..

Do Christians know (or claim to know) which parts of the Bible are parable, historical, mythological, false, or literally true " and to know exact words spoken by Jesus? Do you?

It seems as though many are convinced they know. Do you know how to tell? If so, kindly enlighten all of us so we can agree " and not make mistakes about what should be taken literally.

We wouldnt want those Atheists making more mistakes so tell them how to distinguish literal from non literal.

If you see me making a claim to know something, that I shouldn't be making, id encourage you to point it out and we can discuss such statements.

Is the biblical story about resurrection literally true or is it parable, folklore, mythological, or false?

The fact of the matter is, someone wrote these books,

Agree, though we cannot say with certainty who wrote them.

and they may have wrote them in any matter suggested (parables, myths, lies, history, etc...)

Agree. Some of the stories may be literally true. Which ones? And, how can we determine which are literally true and which are not?

We should agree there is some kind of objective truth that we should be trying to get to, when interpreting scripture.

I, for one, would like to know if scripture should be interpreted to indicate that the resurrection story is objective truth (truth conditions are met without bias caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc.).

Perhaps you can identify a means to determine if the story is literal truth or not.

First of all, Z I don't pretend to be some all knowing person. If you would go back and read the conversation, I myself admit I just don't know the answers with a lot of these creation stories. I don't have some kind of rules or standards of how we should determine what is true and what isn't. Im simply doing the best I can using reasoning with the evidence we have to establish what I believe.... I don't know the exact words Jesus spoke, I never met the physical person of Christ, I didn't witness Him speak, I don't even speak the same language He did.. I don't know why you are even questioning me on that...

There are certainly some places in the scripture that are obvious parables. Like places where the author literally said these are parables. There are also places where I think it is established history, at least to some degree... However, with instances where it is not clear to be a parable or history or whatever, I suppose we just need to use our best reasoning...

As far as the resurrection goes, this may be appropriate for another topic, but the evidence in support of the resurrection makes it clear that it is not a parable.. One piece of evidence id direct you to is the first part of 1 Corinthians 15 that Paul wrote

[Tart]

We should agree there is some kind of objective truth that we should be trying to get to, when interpreting scripture.

Why should we agree to this?

What do you mean by, "objective truth?"

Why should we expect to find it in scripture?


Tcg

When I say that, in this case I am referring to some kind of truth in which these words were written in... For example, even if it was a lie, it would be objectively true that the author wrote the words lying... If it is fiction that the author created, we should interpret it that way. It would be objectively true to say it was a work of fiction...

That is what I mean by we should agree there is some kind of objective truth that we should be working to make sense of... I say this as a response to Z's statement that we can not interpret the Bible past anyone's own opinion.

I can agree with this given this explanation of "objective truth." The question we are left with then is how do we gain this understanding and in light the topic of this thread, how do we make these determinations about the biblical creation story specifically?


Tcg

honestly... id just say anyway possible to establish the truth...

That's rather vague. Can you give an example of one of the possible ways to establish the truth?


Tcg

Can you?

[Tcg]

We should agree there is some kind of objective truth that we should be trying to get to, when interpreting scripture.

Why should we agree to this?

What do you mean by, "objective truth?"

Why should we expect to find it in scripture?


Tcg

When I say that, in this case I am referring to some kind of truth in which these words were written in... For example, even if it was a lie, it would be objectively true that the author wrote the words lying... If it is fiction that the author created, we should interpret it that way. It would be objectively true to say it was a work of fiction...

That is what I mean by we should agree there is some kind of objective truth that we should be working to make sense of... I say this as a response to Z's statement that we can not interpret the Bible past anyone's own opinion.

I can agree with this given this explanation of "objective truth." The question we are left with then is how do we gain this understanding and in light the topic of this thread, how do we make these determinations about the biblical creation story specifically?


Tcg

honestly... id just say anyway possible to establish the truth...

That's rather vague. Can you give an example of one of the possible ways to establish the truth?


Tcg

Can you?

I'm not the one who suggested that there should be one. Is this your admission that you don't know of any possible way to establish this truth?


Tcg

[Tart]

We should agree there is some kind of objective truth that we should be trying to get to, when interpreting scripture.

Why should we agree to this?

What do you mean by, "objective truth?"

Why should we expect to find it in scripture?


Tcg

When I say that, in this case I am referring to some kind of truth in which these words were written in... For example, even if it was a lie, it would be objectively true that the author wrote the words lying... If it is fiction that the author created, we should interpret it that way. It would be objectively true to say it was a work of fiction...

That is what I mean by we should agree there is some kind of objective truth that we should be working to make sense of... I say this as a response to Z's statement that we can not interpret the Bible past anyone's own opinion.

I can agree with this given this explanation of "objective truth." The question we are left with then is how do we gain this understanding and in light the topic of this thread, how do we make these determinations about the biblical creation story specifically?


Tcg

honestly... id just say anyway possible to establish the truth...

That's rather vague. Can you give an example of one of the possible ways to establish the truth?


Tcg

Can you?

I'm not the one who suggested that there should be one. Is this your admission that you don't know of any possible way to establish this truth?


Tcg

How about a quote from a smart dude "I think therefor I am"~ Descartes

[Tcg]

How about a quote from a smart dude "I think therefor I am"~ Descartes

You've lost me. How does this quote help us determine whether the creation story should be taken literally or figuratively?


Tcg

[Tart]

And by the way, I never suggested there should be some kind of standards for determining truth.. I even said so in a response above to Z.. I just think we should agree there is some kind of objective truth about the scripture, that we should all be trying to determine....

And really, we are all here debating about it. However sometimes there is people who claim we should just throw it away because we can determine anything, and I disagree about that.. That's dumb... It is almost on the lines of saying the evidence doesn't even exist, that people say over and over... That is just dumb

[Zzyzx]

.

First of all, Z I don't pretend to be some all knowing person. If you would go back and read the conversation, I myself admit I just don't know the answers with a lot of these creation stories.

I accept that you do not know whether creation stories are literally true or not. I dont either. However, my reasoning tells me they are likely myth " but I do not have any emotional investment either way.

I don't have some kind of rules or standards of how we should determine what is true and what isn't. Im simply doing the best I can using reasoning with the evidence we have to establish what I believe....

Yes, when we cannot determine truth we can form an opinion (what we believe)

I don't know the exact words Jesus spoke, I never met the physical person of Christ, I didn't witness Him speak, I don't even speak the same language He did.. I don't know why you are even questioning me on that...

Can we trust the Gospels to tell us his words?

There are certainly some places in the scripture that are obvious parables. Like places where the author literally said these are parables.

Agreed

There are also places where I think it is established history, at least to some degree... However, with instances where it is not clear to be a parable or history or whatever, I suppose we just need to use our best reasoning

Thus, your guess is as good as mine " and conversely, mine is as good as yours. It is a matter of opinion

As far as the resurrection goes, this may be appropriate for another topic, but the evidence in support of the resurrection makes it clear that it is not a parable..

Pardon " I edited after you quoted. My statements should have read creation story rather than resurrection story.

One piece of evidence id direct you to is the first part of 1 Corinthians 15 that Paul wrote

Something to think about for a future thread, Did Paul/Saul have direct personal knowledge of the resurrection?

[Tcg]

And by the way, I never suggested there should be some kind of standards for determining truth.. I even said so in a response above to Z.. I just think we should agree there is some kind of objective truth about the scripture, that we should all be trying to determine....

You are suggesting that we should attempt to determine some kind of objective truth about the scripture, but admit that there is no known standard by which we can do so?

And really, we are all here debating about it. However sometimes there is people who claim we should just throw it away because we can determine anything, and I disagree about that.. That's dumb... It is almost on the lines of saying the evidence doesn't even exist, that people say over and over... That is just dumb

This is an interesting opinion, but I don't see how it addresses the topic of this thread.


Tcg

[Tart]

.

First of all, Z I don't pretend to be some all knowing person. If you would go back and read the conversation, I myself admit I just don't know the answers with a lot of these creation stories.

I accept that you do not know whether creation stories are literally true or not. I dont either. However, my reasoning tells me they are likely myth " but I do not have any emotional investment either way.

I don't have some kind of rules or standards of how we should determine what is true and what isn't. Im simply doing the best I can using reasoning with the evidence we have to establish what I believe....

Yes, when we cannot determine truth we can form an opinion (what we believe)

I don't know the exact words Jesus spoke, I never met the physical person of Christ, I didn't witness Him speak, I don't even speak the same language He did.. I don't know why you are even questioning me on that...

Can we trust the Gospels to tell us his words?

There are certainly some places in the scripture that are obvious parables. Like places where the author literally said these are parables.

Agreed

There are also places where I think it is established history, at least to some degree... However, with instances where it is not clear to be a parable or history or whatever, I suppose we just need to use our best reasoning

Thus, your guess is as good as mine " and conversely, mine is as good as yours. It is a matter of opinion

As far as the resurrection goes, this may be appropriate for another topic, but the evidence in support of the resurrection makes it clear that it is not a parable..

Pardon " I edited after you quoted. My statements should have read creation story rather than resurrection story.

One piece of evidence id direct you to is the first part of 1 Corinthians 15 that Paul wrote

Something to think about for a future thread, Did Paul/Saul have direct personal knowledge of the resurrection?

Well I have vaguely statement my beliefs about the creation story previously in this thread... You will find out that im just trying to understand these stories to the best of my knowledge... For example I have already stated about my concerns of accepting Noah's flood as a literal story, and the truth is I Just don't know, "Was there a flood? I just don't know"~me However in the chapter following the flood, Genesis 10, I think there is certainly some kind of historical evidence, listing nations around the world.. And im starting to believe even the Garden of Eden has some historical content as well, go back and read... If you have any questions about what I have personally said, bring it up and we will talk about it... You guys should quit putting words in my mouth


Im going to bed...

[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 ?

Over 500 peeks at this topic

And only one Christian to tackle the topic directly

To admit they don't actually know or understand.

Yet other Christians will go on and on in other threads about ANYTHING other than the details of what is in their Bibles concerning the creation myths.

I take that as an admission that they too don't know or understand.

I suggest that they recognise that they are dealing with human creation mythology

But will not admit it because the feet of clay that supports Christianity will crumble for them too.

Christianity - in my view - is a fraud.