One of the Ultimate Objectives of Christianity (And How Human Understanding Fights Against It)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not ignoring what is written, but I would say you are not seeing how Genesis 2 is written out. By the way in terms of reconciliation, both the land animals and man were created on the same day according to Genesis 1. Genesis 2 has no mention of day or days. It doesn't even tell us how long Adam and Eve spent in the Garden before they fell. So they could have stayed in the Garden for years, or, they could have stayed in the Garden 3 seconds. Who knows. (But again, both the land creatures and man were created the same day in Genesis 6.)
You are either ignoring what is written or you are missing the point. In Genesis one, on day six animals are created BEFORE man. In Genesis two, the man (the male) is created BEFORE the animals while the woman (the female) is created AFTER the animals. Period! Being created on the same day has nothing to do with it. The creation sequence of man relative to the animals is different in each story. Are you unable to understand this?
Quote:
I also do not ignore what is mentioned in the Psalms. Yet I wouldn't say one or two lines speaking about God crushing the heads of Leviathan are whole creation myths.
Again, the Psalm 74 is copying the Baal Cycle myth with its reference to God crushing the heads of Leviathan.
Quote:
As you said, Leviathan also represented the chaotic waters, not just an actual beast.
There was no actual seven-headed beast.
Quote:
Then we have the mention of not only Leviathan in the Book of Job, but also another beast in Behemoth. God declares He made both, and they are nothing but creatures God made right along with us. They are not His rivals, like they are to the Ancient Near East gods. Psalm 104:25-26 reads.........
You keep missing the point, which is that the Bible is drawing upon the creation myths of the other ANE peoples.
Quote:
Here is the sea, great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great. There go the ships, and Leviathan, which You formed to play in it.
So you see, Leviathan is not a rival to God or someone He struggled to bring under submission to create the heavens and the earth. Here it shows Leviathan as God's pet. Even in the interpretation of borrowing from Ancient Near East myths, the Ancient Hebrew Israelites show the superiority of Yahweh.They also state all the champions and heroes of the Ancient Near East, were really the hybrid children of fallen spiritual beings. That it was because of them, the world was full of evil. It's interpretations like this you will not get from scholars. And there is still so much more to learn.
No kidding on the bolded. As scholarship has shown, the biblical writers used the myths and stories of the other ANE peoples as a polemic against them by attributing to Yahweh what had been attributed to the other gods. And I got that from SCHOLARS.
Quote:
Finally I would say you might be ignoring something as well. Genesis 1 is written into the Ten Commandments. You ignore the Israelites 2,000 plus years ago, most likely accepted those things to be foundational. That means they most likely believed some of the things you deny. That Jesus Himself believed some of the things you deny. Would you tell me you have no problem with that outlook?
Genesis one, once again is believed to have been written around the time of the Babylon captivity. The fact that some of the commandments that appear in the ten commandment list may appear in Genesis is irrelevant to the time that Genesis was written.
And the fact that the ancient Hebrews actually may have believed the creation and flood stories is also irrelevant concerning the issue of whether or not what they believed was actually true. They weren't. Genesis has a hard dome with windows, and in which the sun, moon, and stars reside covering a flat earth. There IS no hard dome covering the earth. The pictures below show the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews as well as generally speaking of the entire ancient Near East.
The Genesis creation story states things that simply are not true. There is no hard dome firmament over the earth in which the sun, moon, and stars are set. Nor did the earth exist before the sun. Good grief, get oriented to reality.
Actual that is in reference to the the Roman Kingdom the seven Hills (settlements) of Rome: Palatine Hill, Aventine Hill, Capitoline Hill, Caelian Hill, Esquiline Hill, Viminal Hill, and Quirinal Hill.
Actual that is in reference to the the Roman Kingdom the seven Hills (settlements) of Rome: Palatine Hill, Aventine Hill, Capitoline Hill, Caelian Hill, Esquiline Hill, Viminal Hill, and Quirinal Hill.
That's unlikely because Psalm 74 is a Psalm of Asaph who lived during the time of David and Solomon which was well before Rome came on the scene. And the context concerns the creation of the world. Also, while the biblical text states that Leviathan has 'heads,' it doesn't give the number of heads. It's the Canaanite Baal Cycle that gives the number of heads as seven.
You are either ignoring what is written or you are missing the point. In Genesis one, on day six animals are created BEFORE man. In Genesis two, the man (the male) is created BEFORE the animals while the woman (the female) is created AFTER the animals. Period! Being created on the same day has nothing to do with it. The creation sequence of man relative to the animals is different in each story. Are you unable to understand this?
How I understand Genesis 2, is Adam is the focus. The mention of animals in Genesis 2 does not mean God created them after man (or before man for that matter), but their mention is relative to God's dealings with Adam. In the same way when Genesis 2 mentions Yahweh making the trees and plants, Adam was already alluded to in the text. Does that mean God created the trees after Adam in Genesis 2? No, not in my estimation of the overall narrative. Everything that is mentioned, is in relation to how God deals with Adam. Because we know God made everything, Genesis 2 is simply giving credit to God. It is not giving us a direct play-by-play of order like Genesis 1. You, and many assume Genesis 2 does give us play-by-play.
So that is my understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Again, the Psalm 74 is copying the Baal Cycle myth with its reference to God crushing the heads of Leviathan.
I would agree the text is drawing towards the imagery there. Showing God's superiority over Baal and the other gods. I just don't put this as a creation myth the Israelites believed, in the same light of Genesis 1 and 2. They didn't believe God did battle with anyone to create the world. They believed Yahweh is the Most High God.
Now scholars would disagree. They would say the Hebrews actually worshipped many gods along with Yahweh in the beginning. And as you say, around the Babylonian captivity, that is when you had massive redaction and Judaism become monotheistic in it's nature. I disagree with this view. We know Israel and Solomon's Temple existed before the Babylonian captivity. So these foundation stories existed prior to that time. Scholars even suggest the Genesis 2 account possibly goes back to around 1000-900 BC/BCE. (I don't accept this)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
You keep missing the point, which is that the Bible is drawing upon the creation myths of the other ANE peoples.
Now what about my point in that those myths draw from the truth of God's actual dealings with humanity? As I believe the Genesis creation account, the flood, and the movement of peoples actually happened. I believe the ANE myths are distortions of the truth. However when you say the Bible drew upon those myths, its almost as though you're saying the Bible got it's ideas from them. And that the Biblical stories are also nothing but myths. I disagree with this conclusion. With this, perhaps now you know where I'm coming from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
No kidding on the bolded. As scholarship has shown, the biblical writers used the myths and stories of the other ANE peoples as a polemic against them by attributing to Yahweh what had been attributed to the other gods. And I got that from SCHOLARS.
Yet scholars don't see the whole picture. They aren't interpreting scripture from truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
Genesis one, once again is believed to have been written around the time of the Babylon captivity. The fact that some of the commandments that appear in the ten commandment list may appear in Genesis is irrelevant to the time that Genesis was written.
And the fact that the ancient Hebrews actually may have believed the creation and flood stories is also irrelevant concerning the issue of whether or not what they believed was actually true. They weren't. Genesis has a hard dome with windows, and in which the sun, moon, and stars reside covering a flat earth. There IS no hard dome covering the earth. The pictures below show the cosmology of the ancient Hebrews as well as generally speaking of the entire ancient Near East.
The Genesis creation story states things that simply are not true. There is no hard dome firmament over the earth in which the sun, moon, and stars are set. Nor did the earth exist before the sun. Good grief, get oriented to reality.
It is likely Jesus also believed these foundational stories. I don't focus so much on what the ancient peoples called the heavens. If it appeared as a dome to their eyes, that is how they viewed the sky. That is their reference to the sky. There is a sky. We now know it as the atmosphere. There is a sun, a moon, stars. Our knowledge of them is far more advanced in what they actually are physically. That is all it is.
Now in terms of historic events, the ancient people can't be wrong! Jesus can't be wrong here. Funny enough, if Jesus stated the sky was a dome, I wouldn't hold that against Him because again, that was just the ancient description of the world. Yet if Jesus was wrong about actual historical events, that would be a major problem. In my estimation, if Adam and Eve didn't exist, you can officially equate the Bible to the same sentiments we have about all other myths. We can see the Bible as we see the Greek myths and their gods. So on and so forth.
If I accepted the scholarly view wholesale, it would be hard for me to give Christianity any special relevance over other myths and the like. I don't regard Greek gods, because I accept them to be myths. I don't regard the gods of other religions, because I believe them to be myths. If I viewed the Torah/TaNaK the same way, I wouldn't regard Yahweh. It would be an interesting take if I did.
How I understand Genesis 2, is Adam is the focus. The mention of animals in Genesis 2 does not mean God created them after man (or before man for that matter), but their mention is relative to God's dealings with Adam. In the same way when Genesis 2 mentions Yahweh making the trees and plants, Adam was already alluded to in the text. Does that mean God created the trees after Adam in Genesis 2? No, not in my estimation of the overall narrative. Everything that is mentioned, is in relation to how God deals with Adam. Because we know God made everything, Genesis 2 is simply giving credit to God. It is not giving us a direct play-by-play of order like Genesis 1. You, and many assume Genesis 2 does give us play-by-play.
So that is my understanding.
I would agree the text is drawing towards the imagery there. Showing God's superiority over Baal and the other gods. I just don't put this as a creation myth the Israelites believed, in the same light of Genesis 1 and 2. They didn't believe God did battle with anyone to create the world. They believed Yahweh is the Most High God.
Now scholars would disagree. They would say the Hebrews actually worshipped many gods along with Yahweh in the beginning. And as you say, around the Babylonian captivity, that is when you had massive redaction and Judaism become monotheistic in it's nature. I disagree with this view. We know Israel and Solomon's Temple existed before the Babylonian captivity. So these foundation stories existed prior to that time. Scholars even suggest the Genesis 2 account possibly goes back to around 1000-900 BC/BCE. (I don't accept this)
Now what about my point in that those myths draw from the truth of God's actual dealings with humanity? As I believe the Genesis creation account, the flood, and the movement of peoples actually happened. I believe the ANE myths are distortions of the truth. However when you say the Bible drew upon those myths, its almost as though you're saying the Bible got it's ideas from them. And that the Biblical stories are also nothing but myths. I disagree with this conclusion. With this, perhaps now you know where I'm coming from.
Yet scholars don't see the whole picture. They aren't interpreting scripture from truth.
It is likely Jesus also believed these foundational stories. I don't focus so much on what the ancient peoples called the heavens. If it appeared as a dome to their eyes, that is how they viewed the sky. That is their reference to the sky. There is a sky. We now know it as the atmosphere. There is a sun, a moon, stars. Our knowledge of them is far more advanced in what they actually are physically. That is all it is.
Now in terms of historic events, the ancient people can't be wrong! Jesus can't be wrong here. Funny enough, if Jesus stated the sky was a dome, I wouldn't hold that against Him because again, that was just the ancient description of the world. Yet if Jesus was wrong about actual historical events, that would be a major problem. In my estimation, if Adam and Eve didn't exist, you can officially equate the Bible to the same sentiments we have about all other myths. We can see the Bible as we see the Greek myths and their gods. So on and so forth.
If I accepted the scholarly view wholesale, it would be hard for me to give Christianity any special relevance over other myths and the like. I don't regard Greek gods, because I accept them to be myths. I don't regard the gods of other religions, because I believe them to be myths. If I viewed the Torah/TaNaK the same way, I wouldn't regard Yahweh. It would be an interesting take if I did.
Well, you do you. I'll stick with reality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
