Thread: Creation myth a realistic scenario?

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

You my friend are a moron. Do research before you start spouting BS.

http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=118

if this poll was really that big, why didn't I get it? or anyone that I know for that matter? have you gotten this poll?

these kinds are polls aren't all that convincing. I'm curious as to how many reached poor neighborhoods and minorities.

fundies are definitely pocketed in larger concentrations in certain states. and nearly non existent in other states. depending on where you take a poll really influences the outcome.

Juorara, you're just speculating about the accuracy or lack there-of, of the poll. You're not giving any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims.

Look carefully. Look what Rakjavik just did. Did you see that? He gave a source.

Anyway i guess i was right about quite a few Christians beleiving in the bibles accountant of the creation of the Universe and the origins of life

Originally Posted by juroara

if this poll was really that big, why didn't I get it?

Pew research polls as far as I know are the largest and most known polling company in the US. I don't know why you haven't heard of it.

you must be living in a box if you honestly believe christians take the bible literally. the number of christians that do are in the MINORITY. and those fundies are actually isolated from mainstream christianity

mainstream christianity does not take the creation myth literally, but on a symbolic level. THUS, mainstream christians believe it or not, actually believes in evolution and that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years

Who gave you the authority to prescribe that belief?

Honestly, a few hundred years ago; virtually everybody took the Bible as the literal truth. God made humans in his image and all other animals at the same time, and the Earth was made fully formed as it is. Nowadays, there are still a very large number of Christians who believe that, and yes, probably a majority. You can't suddenly say that something is a metaphor as soon as it's disproven; I mean, until recently it was the ultimate truth, and now it's just a metaphor... wha? Believing in metaphorical Christianity isn't really believing in anything at all. That makes my faith in the flying spaghetti monster just as compelling as yours if you think about it; he may have been proven to not exist, but his intricate noodlage is a clear metaphor for the string theory at the heart of reality and demonstrates to us how everything is connected, so I'm going to keep believing in flying spaghetti monsterism.

If you keep taking and taking from Christianity, eventually you'll have nothing left... but you'll still keep calling yourself a Christian. It doesn't make any sense... the only thing that will remain is God, but if you think about it he won't be the Christian God because there'll be nothing to separate him from any other God, or indeed metaphysics.

Obviously you're a relatively smart person because you can see that evolution is true, but why continue to bundle yourself with Christianity? Build up your own collection of beliefs and morals, sure, but don't lump yourself with the 'Christians' if you're going to ignore half of what it says in the Bible (I assume you're not for stoning to death, genocide, or slavery, either).

I agree Xei. By that logic I can take Stephen King's Pet Cemetary metaphorically and have my religion, and it would be just as viable as Christianity (if not more since it's more recent and quite frankly a much more interesting read)

Originally Posted by Xei

Who gave you the authority to prescribe that belief?

Honestly, a few hundred years ago; virtually everybody took the Bible as the literal truth. God made humans in his image and all other animals at the same time, and the Earth was made fully formed as it is. Nowadays, there are still a very large number of Christians who believe that, and yes, probably a majority. You can't suddenly say that something is a metaphor as soon as it's disproven; I mean, until recently it was the ultimate truth, and now it's just a metaphor... wha? Believing in metaphorical Christianity isn't really believing in anything at all. That makes my faith in the flying spaghetti monster just as compelling as yours if you think about it; he may have been proven to not exist, but his intricate noodlage is a clear metaphor for the string theory at the heart of reality and demonstrates to us how everything is connected, so I'm going to keep believing in flying spaghetti monsterism.

If you keep taking and taking from Christianity, eventually you'll have nothing left... but you'll still keep calling yourself a Christian. It doesn't make any sense... the only thing that will remain is God, but if you think about it he won't be the Christian God because there'll be nothing to separate him from any other God, or indeed metaphysics.

Obviously you're a relatively smart person because you can see that evolution is true, but why continue to bundle yourself with Christianity? Build up your own collection of beliefs and morals, sure, but don't lump yourself with the 'Christians' if you're going to ignore half of what it says in the Bible (I assume you're not for stoning to death, genocide, or slavery, either).

it was a metaphor when I went to church

it was a metaphor when I went to church related classes.

it was a metaphor when the priests told me it was a metaphor.

it was a metaphor when my parents told me it was a metaphor.

I was raised as roman catholic. it is therefore my belief that the thousands of other roman catholics running around the place, have also been raised to believe that genesis is not 100% literal - or the complete picture. that doesn't mean genesis has no meaning to a catholic. it is still very much believed that we are made in Gods image. however, this is not to be taken literally to mean that our body is what God looks like. this is what I mean by metaphor - that there is another meaning behind the words. Just as Jesus himself spoke in metaphors when he said the temple would rise in three days. He was speaking about his body, not a building.

metaphor, metaphor, metaphor - doesn't mean something holds no meaning. on the contrary, it means it holds MORE meaning than what the words literally mean.

I call myself a christian because I follow Christ. not because I follow the roman catholic church, any church, or the bible. But Christ alone.

Originally Posted by juroara

metaphor, metaphor, metaphor

Where do the metaphors start and where do they stop? It's obvious when Jesus is talking about metaphors, but Genesis? That seemed to be talking literally to me. So who decides what is metaphor and what is not? Another interesting question, if all the christians are linked to God and have a relationship with him, then why in the world do so many of them disagree? If I had a telepathic connection straight to the big cheese, I'd ask him which part is metaphor and which is not. But for a group that seems to be all connected to the same guy, they seem to disagree a whole lot.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

Where do the metaphors start and where do they stop? It's obvious when Jesus is talking about metaphors, but Genesis? That seemed to be talking literally to me. So who decides what is metaphor and what is not? Another interesting question, if all the christians are linked to God and have a relationship with him, then why in the world do so many of them disagree? If I had a telepathic connection straight to the big cheese, I'd ask him which part is metaphor and which is not. But for a group that seems to be all connected to the same guy, they seem to disagree a whole lot.

the aim is to have a relationship with God - not that you magically have one already just by calling yourself a christian. or by going to church. or by following some outer doctrine. how many christians do you know claim to have such a telepathic connection to God??

when I was little and studying the bible, I think it was a childrens bible that posed the question "how long is a day in genesis when Earth hasn't been created yet?"

I was a kid, but I knew from school, days were not all the same. it depends on the planet - and were talking about the creation of something much more than just earth. As it clearly doesn't mean, 24 hours, I understood a day becomes a metaphor for some measure of time . A long godly measure of time. This is the catholic view as I know it. Which is why catholics have no problem with the earth being older than 6000 years or whatever it is that fundies say. Because we have no definite measure of time on creation in genesis. If the first day is unmeasurable in genesis, so too is the second and third where plants and animals show up.

So if science says the two days in genesis actually took billions and millions of years - were cool with that.

a christian still has to be realistic even with their 'superstition' as others have called it. the old testament was finally translated into writing, more than likely after generations of an oral tradition. it is not a first hand account. and from what we know about oral traditions is - they are very poetic. and poetic, on purpose. they turn things into metaphors to carry out big meanings in a small amount of words. because, in the oral tradition, there is no written record to help you remember. you have to just remember the poem and pass it along. and can and does become a game of telephone.

in oral traditions, it is usually understood that many stories are speaking in loaded metaphors. in oral cultures world wide, a single verse can have multiple meanings. its usually when things get lost in translation or translated to text that we start to take things 100% literal. since the culture with text can now record in first hand accounts. they have no need for metaphors, and they can soon forget that older stories are not first hand accounts.

this is the difference between the old and new T. and you can see it in the style of writing.

this is a good practical guide for the christian studying the bible as to what to take literal or a little more metaphorical. just look at the language. look at the block of text. does it sound like a poem?

Im not saying ignore genesis either. if you take genesis with a deeper understanding than a literal understanding - it makes more sense and offers a more solid foundation into christianity. taking it literal on the other hand has developed a damaging relationship between men and women for generations.

if you aren't christian, the value of genesis is an insight into the human psyche. many aspects of which, we still haven't overcome today.

Day = 24 hours.

If a day =/= 24 hours, then it is not a day.

Yeah, a day is from when the sun/moon is at a specific position until it is there again the next time. It's not a fucking metaphor.

And if a day was a metaphor, then what else is? Was Jesus a metaphor? Is hell and heaven a metaphor? Is god a metaphor? It's a never ending cycle once you start claiming metaphors.

Originally Posted by wendylove

The bible explanation is proberly really good. Firstly god created everything, and yet his greatest creation i.e. life is only on about 0.1% of the planets in the universe. So basically the universe is lifeless.

Anyway, past explanation from the bible was that the world was in the middle with the sun revolving around earth.

So there is a garden with life in it, and two humans picked an apple. This caused all the disease and sin in the world. This really contradicts a apple a day rule, note apples taste nasty don't eat them.

So god designed us really good, firstly alot of children die of cancer and other disease, which really shows intelligent design.

Anyway, then there was a flood, which is really stupid solution for getting rid off evil, espically since it didn't work. Then god sent down his only son to get rid off sin, however he failed and got killed.

Now were here in modern times. And yet science has shown this story to be a myth, and yet ne yo and other people believe this.

So is this a realistic scenario?

Do you know the feeling when you want to punch sarcastic people in the face, (preferrably with a knuckle duster as hard as you can, repeatedly)? I am getting that feeling now.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

And if a day was a metaphor, then what else is? Was Jesus a metaphor? Is hell and heaven a metaphor? Is god a metaphor? It's a never ending cycle once you start claiming metaphors.

Only the things that have been so far demonstrated to be false are metaphors. Everything else is completely literal. At least until it becomes necessary to move those items into column A as well.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

And if a day was a metaphor, then what else is? Was Jesus a metaphor? Is hell and heaven a metaphor? Is god a metaphor? It's a never ending cycle once you start claiming metaphors.

I don't care, as long as those damn queers can't get married and you accept that ancient hippy zombie as your savior from the eternal lake burning you get for not accepting the infinite love of the invisible king (who is also the ancient hippy zombie, and his dad).

Originally Posted by juroara

the aim is to have a relationship with God - not that you magically have one already just by calling yourself a christian. or by going to church. or by following some outer doctrine. how many christians do you know claim to have such a telepathic connection to God??

when I was little and studying the bible, I think it was a childrens bible that posed the question "how long is a day in genesis when Earth hasn't been created yet?"

I was a kid, but I knew from school, days were not all the same. it depends on the planet - and were talking about the creation of something much more than just earth. As it clearly doesn't mean, 24 hours, I understood a day becomes a metaphor for some measure of time . A long godly measure of time. This is the catholic view as I know it. Which is why catholics have no problem with the earth being older than 6000 years or whatever it is that fundies say. Because we have no definite measure of time on creation in genesis. If the first day is unmeasurable in genesis, so too is the second and third where plants and animals show up.

So if science says the two days in genesis actually took billions and millions of years - were cool with that.

a christian still has to be realistic even with their 'superstition' as others have called it. the old testament was finally translated into writing, more than likely after generations of an oral tradition. it is not a first hand account. and from what we know about oral traditions is - they are very poetic. and poetic, on purpose. they turn things into metaphors to carry out big meanings in a small amount of words. because, in the oral tradition, there is no written record to help you remember. you have to just remember the poem and pass it along. and can and does become a game of telephone.

in oral traditions, it is usually understood that many stories are speaking in loaded metaphors. in oral cultures world wide, a single verse can have multiple meanings. its usually when things get lost in translation or translated to text that we start to take things 100% literal. since the culture with text can now record in first hand accounts. they have no need for metaphors, and they can soon forget that older stories are not first hand accounts.

this is the difference between the old and new T. and you can see it in the style of writing.

this is a good practical guide for the christian studying the bible as to what to take literal or a little more metaphorical. just look at the language. look at the block of text. does it sound like a poem?

Im not saying ignore genesis either. if you take genesis with a deeper understanding than a literal understanding - it makes more sense and offers a more solid foundation into christianity. taking it literal on the other hand has developed a damaging relationship between men and women for generations.

if you aren't christian, the value of genesis is an insight into the human psyche. many aspects of which, we still haven't overcome today.

i think most christian preachers actually say a day to god is like.. "billions of years to humans" or something of the sort

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

i think most christian preachers actually say a day to god is like.. "billions of years to humans" or something of the sort

If only he had translated from "God-years" to "human-years" when dictating the bible, a lot of the confusion could have been avoided.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Anyway, past explanation from the bible was that the world was in the middle with the sun revolving around earth.

Does the bible really say that? Or is that an interpretation the catholic church came up with? Something about being in the middle of creation?

Originally Posted by wendylove

So there is a garden with life in it, and two humans picked an apple. This caused all the disease and sin in the world.

Does the bible really say the forbidden fruit was an apple? This confusion is brought on by early christians. The latin word for apple is also the same for evil:Malus

In the Hebrew the word serpent is Hebrew word nachash (naw-khawsh') a snake (from its hiss). The word nachash (naw-khash') is a primitive root of the first. The root means hiss as in whispering a magic spell, generally to prognosticate. This can range from practicing divination, to divine, to observe signs, to learn by experience, to diligently observe, to practice fortune telling, to take as an omen. This is how Satan is connecting with the bibical serpent.

The word tree in Hebrew is `ets (ates), a tree (from its firmness) `atsah (aw-tsaw') is a primitive root meaning to fasten (or make firm) Figuratively this can mean the spine giving firmness to the body (The body is the trunk, and the arms and legs are the limbs). As proof of this, the word for trees is used symbolically in the scriptures to mean people both good and bad in Isaiah.

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. (KJV)

In Genesis the phrase fruit of the tree is the Hebrew word periy- fruit in a wide sense. a) fruit, produce (of the ground), or b) fruit, offspring, children, progeny ( used of the womb), or figuratively c) fruit (of actions).

The phrase "eat of it" in Hebrew is 'akal (aw-kal') This word has many uses, among which could mean to lay with a woman (a sexual act). Touch in Hebrew is naga` (naw-gah'), to touch, ie: to lay the hand upon (for any purpose); euphemism for laying with a woman.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

The phrase pleasant to the eyes in Hebrew word chamad: To desire, to covet, to take pleasure in, to delight in, to be desirable, to delight greatly, to desire greatly, desirableness, preciousness.

The word desired in Hebrew ta'avah (tah-av-aw'); from 183 (abbreviated); to yearn for, to lust after (used of bodily appetites) a longing; by implication, a delight (subjectively, satisfaction, objectively, a charm): a desire, a wish, longings of one's heart; lust, an appetite, covetousness (in a bad sense), to covet, to wait longingly.

The word took in Hebrew laqach (law-kakh'); a primitive root; to take (in the widest variety of applications): to take, to lay hold of, to receive, to marry, to take a wife, to take to or for a person, to procure, to get, to take possession of, to select, to choose, to take in marriage, to receive, to accept.

Thus we get:
Enoch 31:5 And he understood his condemnation and the sin which he had sinned before,
therefore he conceived thought against Adam, in such form he entered and seduced Eva, but did not touch Adam.

Originally Posted by wendylove

So god designed us really good, firstly alot of children die of cancer and other disease, which really shows intelligent design.

Anyway, then there was a flood, which is really stupid solution for getting rid off evil, espically since it didn't work.

Genesis 6:4 (Original KJV):
There were giants(Translated form nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and
they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which
were of old, men of renown.

Also in the book of Enoch
And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters(Also in genesis 6:1). And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children

It is true that they were giants in more senses than one. However, the word Nephilim does not mean "giants." It comes from the root "naphal," meaning "fallen ones".

When the Greek Septuagint was made, "Nephilim" was translated as "gegenes." This word suggests "giants" but actually it has little reference to size or strength. "Gegenes" means "earth born." The same term was used to describe the mythical "Titans" -- being partly of celestial and partly of terrestrial origin.

We get;
Genesis 6:12 (Original KJV):
And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt;
for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Jude 6-7
"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh..."

Genesis 6:9
Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with Elohim."

The Hebrew word translated from perfect is tamiym meaning without blemish, complete, whole, unimpaired, healthful. Connect the dots as to why noah was spared and why there was a flood.

All of this information has existed on my hard drive and I am in no way claiming all this research is my own. Certain sections were copied from various sources.

I know I going to be shreaded alive for posting this on a atheist dominated forum, but these are the answers I have to the topic creator.

Oh, lord, it's Wendy.

Asking why humans believe in things is like asking why pig's ass is so damned tasty- it's natural. There is nothing you can do to stop it short of going Big Brother and killing anyone who believes, and even then you'll have people practicing it secretly and in their heads. People believe it because they were taught to believe it, converted themselves because they liked it (or were forced too), or any number of reasons. Science means shit when it's something centered on faith, so it's pointless to try and rape their faith.

Jesus.

Originally Posted by skysaw

If only he had translated from "God-years" to "human-years" when dictating the bible, a lot of the confusion could have been avoided.

well a lot of things in the bible were translated wrong from the original text, i've even heard there are supposedly whole books missing from it, perhaps if the entire thing would of been 100% translated correctly with no missing information the bible would be less confusing and contradictory as it is

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

well a lot of things in the bible were translated wrong from the original text, i've even heard there are supposedly whole books missing from it, perhaps if the entire thing would of been 100% translated correctly with no missing information the bible would be less confusing and contradictory as it is

I completely agree with this.

I think they also lost the part that goes:

Originally Posted by Bible... lost verse

The characters in this book are ficticious. Any resemblance between them and actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

Who knows? That part could have been there at one time. No way to know for sure.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I completely agree with this.

I think they also lost the part that goes:


Who knows? That part could have been there at one time. No way to know for sure.

true

Originally Posted by nitsuJ

i've even heard there are supposedly whole books missing from it

I think the First Council of Nicaea were responsible for that.

Originally Posted by Rakjavik

And if a day was a metaphor, then what else is? Was Jesus a metaphor? Is hell and heaven a metaphor? Is god a metaphor? It's a never ending cycle once you start claiming metaphors.

the Christian never holds God as a metaphor - however - God commands that we build no false idols of God. what this means is you cannot contain God into a box, or some man made idea of what God is or isn't. Thinking of God as a human in the sky for a example, is a false idol of God.

so while the Christian does not consider God a metaphor - metaphors are used to describe God because it is believed God transcends all definitive definitions

Jesus and other important characters are always considered real. the new testament is not from oral tradition. Jesus miracles, even walking on the water, is NOT considered a metaphor. All of what Jesus did will always be considered REAL to the Christian. However, the Christian still needs to have an understanding that Jesus himself speaks in and admits to speaking in, parables.

I am not saying consider something a metaphor just because it isn't scientifically proven.

No Christian considers Jesus' resurrection a metaphor. Is that scientifically proven?? No.

The reason why the old testament is more suspicious than the new testament to even Christians, is because who ever wrote it DID NOT WITNESS the events themselves. rather, it was a story told them, that was told to their father, and his father and so on. The new testament however was written during contemporary times of the events being described.

it's not hard. its not rocket science. but someone who doesn't understand christianity in general, is not going to understand. does the bible contradict itself? of course. But Christians follow Jesus and need to go by what he preaches and taught above all other conflicting texts.

in the old testament heaven is a magical place in the sky

but in the new testament that image is changed when Jesus says "heaven is within yourself". does this mean heaven is a metaphor?

the bible doesn't necessarily give you easy 1-2-3 answers.

the purpose of parables and metaphors is to get you thinking and have you understand a deeper meaning behind the words. Jesus wants you to think about the things he said. Not give you an easy answer. This was the approach of eastern gurus as well.

The reason why is, it is believed true wisdom is discovered internally. No outer doctrine can give you it. Rather, the outer doctrine should inspire you to meditate on its words so that you can discover that inner wisdom. This is why it is damaging to take everything in the bible literal. If wisdom could be understood literally from an outer doctrine, then why did Jesus choose to speak in parables?

Originally Posted by skysaw

If only he had translated from "God-years" to "human-years" when dictating the bible, a lot of the confusion could have been avoided.

the problem is the bible was translated into english and many other languages. in the english language a day is pretty concrete definition. the rotation of our planet or the rotation of another planet. in most cases, it means 24 hours

the word originally used HAD MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION. one of the definitions was 'long period of time'. this is the problem you get in translation. a word with an open interpretation gets turned into something with a closed meaning - 24 hours

the same is true for many other words in genesis