Is Genesis creation a myth or an interpetation of evolution?

Jabberwock said:
Not to derail the thread, but I'm curious! Which two?
Click to expand...




From here:
One of the two Bible creation myths was probably derived from the much older Mesopotamian creation myth "Enuma Elish".

The six days of creation in the Genesis myth parallel the six generations of gods in the Enuma Elish myth in type of god in Enuma Elish that is created (i.e. god of the earth) to what is created or happens on the corresponding day in Genesis (i.e. the waters are gathered together to expose dry land).

Marduk the sixth generation god makes man as a slave so the other gods can rest.

God (Elohim) makes man on the sixth day and he himself rests.

The Enuma Elish six generations of gods:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tiamat and Apsu (1rst generation) who created

Lahamu (2nd generation) who created

Kishar (3rd generation) who created

Anu (4rth generation) who created

Ea (5th generation) who created

Marduk (6th generation).

To read the entire Enuma Elish Creation myth click here: Entire Enuma Elish Creation Myth
Click to expand...


So that's one. What about the other?

I can't f***ing remember. Little help someone?
 
Jabberwock said:
Not to derail the thread, but I'm curious! Which two?
Click to expand...


There two creation stories alright, but I am not so positive we can say they were both adapted from other cultures. The first one, Gen 1:1-2:4a, has a couple of things that might come from Babylon alright, but the second one that starts in Gen 2:5?

 
For crying out loud, that Marduk story was a creation by the devil in anticipation of God revealing the true story a thousand years later so that it only looked like the Genesis story was a warped derivative. That clever bastard! >=(
 
I'm curious as to how anybody who has actually read Genesis and also understands evolution could possibly think that it was an interpretation of evolution. I've heard some creationists say "The order is the same", but it's not. Why don't they try to stand on one eyebrow and stack greasy bb's? Thats easier than trying to reconcile Genesis with evolution.
 
Pauliesonne said:
Not that i disagree with you ( because believe me, I don't ) but could you explain further what you mean?
Click to expand...

The order in which things appear or are created differs, not only between the two versions in Genesis, but also between BOTH versions and the accepted evolutionary history.

Just as a simple case in point : Genesis 1:11 has the plants, including "fruit trees" appearing on the third day, while Genesis 1:16 creates the Sun and Moon on the fourth. This not only contradicts the fossil record, but is energetically impossible -- plants being photosynthetic could not have appeared before the Sun.

Similarly, Genesis 1:24-27 has God create the animals first, then man; Genesis 2:7 has God creating Man, then (Genesis 2:19) animals, and only then (Genesis 1:22) does He create Woman.
 
Pauliesonne said:
Tricky said:
I've heard some creationists say "The order is the same", but it's not. QUOTE]

Not that i disagree with you ( because believe me, I don't ) but could you explain further what you mean?
Click to expand...
I think the explanation goes like this, "Look, it says there were grasses before trees and plants before animals sea creatures before land creatures and birds before mammals, which is just what evolution says."

But of course, they are just cherry-picking. It also has whales before land mammals, which is horribly incorrect. It has plants even before the sun is created. There is no way to reconcile the order of appearance in Genesis with either biologic evolution or the evolution of the universe. I mean, he creates night and day before he creates the sun. And after creating night and day on the first day, he does it again on the fourth day.

And that's just in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2 he changes the order again.
Click to expand...
 
Paulie --

This also goes some way to addressing the question you posed on the other thread about what proves the Bible wrong. Just looking at the Genesis "myth," broadly defined, it's obvious that the story is actually two separate and incompatible myths, both of which are incompatible with the existing body of empirical findings.

From a strictly empirical basis, the story is therefore clearly and unequivocably "wrong." On the other hand, Plato's allegory of the cave is also clearly "wrong" from a strictly empirical basis; it exists and is retold, not on the basis of its factual accuracy, but on the basis of its utility at illustrating a philosophical (and possibly moral) point. Aesop's fables would fall under the same category. So, for that matter, would Shakespeare's Hamlet. As Bridge of Birds put it, "fable has strong shoulders and can carry more truth than fact can."
 
Tricky said:
I'm curious as to how anybody who has actually read Genesis and also understands evolution could possibly think that it was an interpretation of evolution. I've heard some creationists say "The order is the same", but it's not. Why don't they try to stand on one eyebrow and stack greasy bb's? Thats easier than trying to reconcile Genesis with evolution.
Click to expand...


Glenn Morton thinks that evolution is in Genesis. He's mainly dwelling on the earth bringing forth ... Read about it here:
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Gen1-11.htm

I am not too convinced, though.

 
Tricky said:
I'm curious as to how anybody who has actually read Genesis and also understands evolution could possibly think that it was an interpretation of evolution. I've heard some creationists say "The order is the same", but it's not. Why don't they try to stand on one eyebrow and stack greasy bb's? Thats easier than trying to reconcile Genesis with evolution.
Click to expand...

(raises hand)

At least the second one, anyway.

Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Not dust, of course, but read it metaphorically. Humans "formed" from pre-existing apes.

Genesis 2:17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Concepts like good/evil and also knowledge of one's own mortality are generally associated with the huge neocortex in humans.

Genesis 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

I haven't noticed any non-human animals that are big on naming, but we're obsessed with it.

Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

I haven't noticed any non-human animals that dressed to conceal their sex organs, but it's pretty common amongst humans, at least after puberty.

Genesis 3:14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

The time frame is all wrong, but snakes did evolve from creatures with legs.

Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Humans do seem to have an innate fear of snakes. That and falling were the first two innate fears discovered in humans. Practically every culture uses a snake sound to quiet children.

Genesis 3:16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The size of the human head does appear to be the reason that there is pain in childbirth. Humans seem to be predisposed to an alpha male social structure. So are chimpanzees, but not bonobos.

Genesis 3:17: And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

The move toward agricultural settlements, which happened because of high population, was associated with nutritional diseases and a more focused hierarchical alpha male structure.
 
I've heard that the Biblical creation myth was a response to the creation myths that were around at the time. God was able to create everything in just six days, with no help from other gods, and he doesn't have to do it again in a year (like some creation myths that were around back when Genesis was written). Also, god could create anything simply by him proclaiming it, "Let there be light, and there was light". I guess that gods back in the day needed more than just their will to make things happen. Also, I've heard (on NPR, this lady who studies myths was talking about this very thing) that the creation myth in the Bible was meant to be taken as a myth. The author had no intention of the story being taken literally.

"From a strictly empirical basis, the story is therefore clearly and unequivocably "wrong." On the other hand, Plato's allegory of the cave is also clearly "wrong" from a strictly empirical basis; it exists and is retold, not on the basis of its factual accuracy, but on the basis of its utility at illustrating a philosophical (and possibly moral) point. Aesop's fables would fall under the same category. So, for that matter, would Shakespeare's Hamlet. As Bridge of Birds put it, "fable has strong shoulders and can carry more truth than fact can."

That basically makes my point. Oh, and I suppose I really didn't answer the question as to where the myths originated. :o
 
Not quite...

epepke said:
(raises hand)

Genesis 2:19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

I haven't noticed any non-human animals that are big on naming, but we're obsessed with it.

Genesis 3:7: And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

I haven't noticed any non-human animals that dressed to conceal their sex organs, but it's pretty common amongst humans, at least after puberty.

Genesis 3:15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Humans do seem to have an innate fear of snakes. That and falling were the first two innate fears discovered in humans. Practically every culture uses a snake sound to quiet children.
Click to expand...

Just a few quick thoughts about these three items you mentioned (I could talk about the others as well, but these three stand out as most in need of discussion).

Re: Genesis 2:19 - The reason you haven't noticed any animals that are big on naming as because you can't speak with animals. Now, if you were a Druid or a Ranger...
Seriously, though. There are several animals with relatively advanced "speech" patterns. We may not have handy English-Animal dictionaries, but that's a far cry from saying that animals lack the capacity to name things.

Re: Genesis 3:7 - But you've noticed that kids *love* to be naked, right? Even that some don't seem to understand why clothes are necessary? And they don't get it until their parents have drilled it into their heads that being naked is bad, right? Do you see where I'm going with this (hint - sounds like "multural inboctrination")?

Re: Genesis 3:15 - I've yet to meet a child that's afraid of snakes - at least, one that hasn't been told repeatedly by his parents that snakes are dangerous. There's that whole pesky cultural indoctrination thing again.

The fact of the matter is, there's very little of human existence that we can say is really instinctive, because none of us know exactly how far our cultural upbringing has gone in developing our mores. Using the bible to psychoanalyze our deepest urges is an effort doomed to failure, because it fails to use the bible as it is - a work of fiction dedicated to helping improve moral attitudes (with a preamble known as the OT dedicated to killing, burning, pillaging, and all kinds of fun drunken sex).
 
Lord Emsworth said:
Glenn Morton thinks that evolution is in Genesis. He's mainly dwelling on the earth bringing forth ... Read about it here:
(snip URL)

I am not too convinced, though.
Click to expand...

This is a bit of a tangent, but I've read a lot of Glenn's posts to Christian Forums and while he holds some views that I think are scientifically unorthodox, he similarly holds unorthodox theological views. He defends both pretty well and his arguments against a literal Flood leave the YECs mumbling and stumbling since, because he believes in a literal Adam, they can't just say he's a God Hater who wants to avoid being accountable.

I did an analysis of Hugh Ross' Old Earth interpretation of Genesis, and while it's not nearly as problematic as YECism, it falls apart when checked against the geologic and paleontological record.

The reconcilliations I've seen by Jews and Christians mainly fall into two main categories. One group considers all of Genesis myth in the literary sense of the word (as others have pointed out - not literaly true, but containing truths), the other considers the Creation Week myth, and then pick and chose how literal they find the rest of the text. Of course there are many other interpretations, but most of the Theistic Evolutionists I know fall generally into one of these groups.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
The reconcilliations I've seen by Jews and Christians mainly fall into two main categories. One group considers all of Genesis myth in the literary sense of the word (as others have pointed out - not literaly true, but containing truths), the other considers the Creation Week myth, and then pick and chose how literal they find the rest of the text. Of course there are many other interpretations, but most of the Theistic Evolutionists I know fall generally into one of these groups.
Click to expand...


I had always assumed that to be true too, but I think that you might find that Baptists fall into a third category. This category says Genesis is a factual and literal account of creation. 1 day = 24 hours, etc. I've heard three different guys (one of them a minister) tell me that. One of the guys told me that he didn't care what science had to say about it, because God already told him how it happened, and that's all he needs to know about it.

:eye-poppi
 
geetarmoore said:
I had always assumed that to be true too, but I think that you might find that Baptists fall into a third category. This category says Genesis is a factual and literal account of creation. 1 day = 24 hours, etc. I've heard three different guys (one of them a minister) tell me that. One of the guys told me that he didn't care what science had to say about it, because God already told him how it happened, and that's all he needs to know about it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant for those who reconcille evolution and Genesis. Of course fundamentalists (such as your Baptist friends) don't even bother doing that. They just stick with a literal Genesis and reject any science they don't like, such as geology and biology.

The range of people who reject standard scientific understanding of those two areas are all over the map, from YECs, to OECs, to one guy I know who argues a YEC/ID hybrid, and who rejects the Modern Synthesis because it doesn't allow for the hyper evolution in 4,000 from a very small number of original species on the Ark his version requires.

Well, he also rejects it because it's "materialist," but I find his need for hyper-evolution a more interesting reason.
 
My parents are baptists while my brothers like to judge me for being an atheist even though they are so BEYOND hypocrites that they almost shine in comparison to those christian terrorists who shoot doctors who perform abortions.
 
How many thinly-veiled arguments for religion must we tolerate before we acknowledge Pauliesonne for what he is?
 
Melendwyr said:
How many thinly-veiled arguments for religion must we tolerate before we acknowledge Pauliesonne for what he is?
Click to expand...

He seems to be a guy who would like to discuss comparisons between science and scripture. If I were to guess why he's like this, I would guess it's because the issues parallel discussions he has in real life with people that are close to him, and he appreciates a perspective from people who are less religious oriented that he’s used to.

Is that what he seems like to you?

Is that okay with you?

There are plenty of threads on topics that don't interest me. Rather than bashing the people who start them, I simply allow them to have their discussions in peace. Is there some reason why you can't do the same?
 
Mycroft said:
He seems to be a guy who would like to discuss comparisons between science and scripture. If I were to guess why he's like this, I would guess it's because the issues parallel discussions he has in real life with people that are close to him, and he appreciates a perspective from people who are less religious oriented that he’s used to.
Click to expand...

Pretty much spot on!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom