God�s Word?

[firstfloor]

There's a stark difference between accepting Genesis as not a literally account and accepting whatever FF is making up. One of them can still hold true to the rest of the bible. FF's fantasy is just that: a fantasy. It has no basis in any part of the bible, and fits nothing more than his imagination. Genesis being not a literal account does not reflect poorly on the legitimacy of the rest of the bible, nor contradict it, so I would hardly call that strange.

I was using Scripture to make the argument. An important part of the interpretation is having respect for the chronology. Genesis is pre-Christian. Christo-think spoils the story. The argument I have given is scattered over the forum. Would you like a review?

[JohnnyP]

Once you accept that the Adam & Eve story is not to be taken literally, then is open to various interpretations, as we have seen with FF's ingenious interpretation. This doesn't diminish the traditional interpretation that's been in place since Paul first equated Jesus to the second Adam.

I take most of Genesis 2 literally, in that it takes place in a Heavenly realm, the Serpent and others created to help Adam are cherubim not regular animals on Earth, fruit of the Trees may be a spiritual energy not literal fruit, etc. While life in Genesis 1 focuses on about evolution of regular animals and other humans on Earth over millions and billions of years, each command for evolution given on a specific day, and days not required to be consecutive. Thus not "utterly contrary to the well established genomic evidence" and with no reason to wildly embellish on what is stated.

I asked FF what the Serpent's curses have to do with it symbolizing sexuality HERE but I don't see a reply: I am open to considering other interpretations as long as they make sense and aren't full of holes, however FF's idea that disobeying God equates to maturity and growing up doesn't make sense.

[shunyadragon]

No, it's a strange idea for anyone who's actually read Genesis.

I have read Genesis and the Canaanite and Babylonian tablets where Genesis came from. Genesis is simply the reworking of ancient legends.

[whag]

There's a stark difference between accepting Genesis as not a literally account and accepting whatever FF is making up. One of them can still hold true to the rest of the bible. FF's fantasy is just that: a fantasy. It has no basis in any part of the bible, and fits nothing more than his imagination. Genesis being not a literal account does not reflect poorly on the legitimacy of the rest of the bible, nor contradict it, so I would hardly call that strange.

Surely, it's very difficult for many of your brethren to process their relationship to the animal kingdom. Strangeness is therefore in the eye of the beholder. A widespread and peculiar misinterpretation of teleology among Christians makes genesis look very strange to skeptics. And the quasi-literal force fitting of religious events into the natural history doesn't make it look any less strange to us.

[Cerebrum123]

I have read Genesis and the Canaanite and Babylonian tablets where Genesis came from. Genesis is simply the reworking of ancient legends.

The idea that Genesis was borrowed from things like the Epic of Gilgamesh have been thoroughly refuted. The differences are far more vast than any similarities. It's on the same level as the Christ Myth theory. http://christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html

Basically, it takes "parallels" that are so loose that, with the right amount of twisting, can be applied to pretty much anything.

[Shadow Templar]

Once you accept that the Adam & Eve story is not to be taken literally, then is open to various interpretations, as we have seen with FF's ingenious interpretation. This doesn't diminish the traditional interpretation that's been in place since Paul first equated Jesus to the second Adam.

Open to various interpretations, sure. But whatever interpretation you have, it has to correlate with the rest of the bible. If it doesn't, it's a sham, and you need to rework it. The interpretation FF has isn't sound: it's ridiculous, and anyone who knows about any of the rest of the bible knows it.

I was using Scripture to make the argument. An important part of the interpretation is having respect for the chronology. Genesis is pre-Christian. Christo-think spoils the story. The argument I have given is scattered over the forum. Would you like a review?

You aren't using scripture to make an argument, you're twisting scripture to make it say whatever you want. It's easy to do, and even "christians" do it to make their points "stronger". That doesn't means what you're saying is true, it means you can lie convincingly.

Also. Genesis is not "pre-Christian", just pre-modern-Christian. There were Christians before 0 A.D. and Adam and Eve is the story used to convey who God is (the creator and sustainer of life, the universe, and everything).

I take most of Genesis 2 literally, in that it takes place in a Heavenly realm, the Serpent and others created to help Adam are cherubim not regular animals on Earth, fruit of the Trees may be a spiritual energy not literal fruit, etc. While life in Genesis 1 focuses on about evolution of regular animals and other humans on Earth over millions and billions of years, each command for evolution given on a specific day, and days not required to be consecutive. Thus not "utterly contrary to the well established genomic evidence" and with no reason to wildly embellish on what is stated.

This.

[whag]

The idea that Genesis was borrowed from things like the Epic of Gilgamesh have been thoroughly refuted. The differences are far more vast than any similarities. It's on the same level as the Christ Myth theory. http://christianthinktank.com/gilgymess.html

Basically, it takes "parallels" that are so loose that, with the right amount of twisting, can be applied to pretty much anything.

The similarities aren't because of direct copying. The authors of Genesis appropriated the Sumerian myths by turning them into their own stories. This is the consensus view.

[Shadow Templar]

The similarities aren't because of direct copying. The authors of Genesis appropriated the Sumerian myths by turning them into their own stories. This is the consensus view.

Um, evidence? This is definitely the consensus view of people who want it to be true. It's also the consensus view that Aliens are among us... to a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

[Rational Gaze]

Genesis is simply the reworking of ancient legends.

False.

[whag]

Um, evidence? This is definitely the consensus view of people who want it to be true. It's also the consensus view that Aliens are among us... to a bunch of conspiracy theorists.

that it's widely agreed the latter borrowed from the former is certainly not on par with conspiracy nutterism. =) it's widely agreed because the similarities are evident. it's like the "borrowing" Lucas did. mythical tropes in the Star Wars series are evident and undeniable. no shame in that.

the funny thing with you is how the reality threatens to collapse your rickety scaffolding. you should have built it stronger.

[firstfloor]

I asked FF what the Serpent's curses have to do with it symbolizing sexuality HERE but I don't see a reply: I am open to considering other interpretations as long as they make sense and aren't full of holes, however FF's idea that disobeying God equates to maturity and growing up doesn't make sense.

[Tassman]

Open to various interpretations, sure. But whatever interpretation you have, it has to correlate with the rest of the bible. If it doesn't, it's a sham, and you need to rework it. The interpretation FF has isn't sound: it's ridiculous, and anyone who knows about any of the rest of the bible knows it.

You are assuming, without evidence, that the bible is the Word of God and therefore coherent throughout. It is demonstrably not. Therefore FF's interpretation of the Adam and Eve fable is perfectly legitimate.

[Shadow Templar]

You are assuming, without evidence, that the bible is the Word of God and therefore coherent throughout. It is demonstrably not. Therefore FF's interpretation of the Adam and Eve fable is perfectly legitimate.

Interpretation, yes, but not an interpretation that any Christian (who is going to believe that the bible is the Word of God) is going to give a second thought to.

[Rational Gaze]

You are assuming, without evidence, that the bible is the Word of God and therefore coherent throughout. It is demonstrably not.

Aside from be demonstrably false, this statement is nothing more than a red herring and a bare assertion. Whether the Bible is the 'word of God' or not is simply irrelevant as to the meaning of the ancient documents the Bible is made up of.

Therefore FF's interpretation of the Adam and Eve fable is perfectly legitimate.

So, according to you, anyone can make whatever interpretation they like? Odd, that's not how people who possess the capacity for rational thought engage in textual exegesis. No, we prefer engaging in actual textual analysis, utilising evidence, and reason.

[whag]

False.

it would be more accurate to say Jews knew the legends and adopted the major tropes into a new story. this is the consensus view of scholars. few scholars think genesis preceded Sumerian stories, and few scholars believe the similarities arose independently. the oral tradition was too familiar.