What kind of book is it?

[Harry Leggs]

Genesis 1 begins, "Once upon a time."

No it does not. Are you referencing the voices in your head?

The language of Genesis is that of myth.

It is written as history, not myth, and that is the way it is treated by future sources including Jesus. Do you have any outside corrobaration from other books in the Bible, Genesis is myth?

One doesn't even really need to understand ancient Hebrew to get it. I understood it decades before I learned Hebrew, though when I did learn Hebrew in my 20s it became that much more obvious, in the original language, that it was myth.

How so? You state it begins with once upon a time which is a lie. Your credibility is shot right there. Right out the window.

To say that the Bible is myth does not deny its divine authorship. On the contrary, symbolic speech is evidence that we are more likely looking at divine truth.

Is that why you believe they believed the earth was flat with a big dome and then go on and on about literalizing?

After all, do we not believe that Jesus used parables, and that Jesus is God?

Jesus is God? Is that literal or figurative?

Jesus used parables,

and identified them as parables. Jesus also used history. You left that out.

BECAUSE Jesus is God. That's how his disciples knew he was God, and how WE know he's God.

To deny the mythic quality of Scripture is as heretical as to deny the truth of it.

What mythic quality are you addressing and can you back up your claims with corroboration from say Jesus for example?

It's like complaining that Shakespeare's plays are historically inaccurate, or arguing with historians and believing that Shakespeare's plays are historically accurate. Both are silly, and both show that you're completely missing the point of Shakespeare's plays.

Both atheists, who deny Scripture, and certain Christians who insist on taking it literally,

and this is coming from source who says they believe the earth was flat with a dome? That is evilbible or skeptics annotated nonsense and here you claim three (?) years of seminary school?

 

[CrowCross]

You find a book just sitting there. No title. No dewey decimal number to tell you what type of book it is. It could be a novel. It could be a phone book. It could be a blank journal waiting to be filled. How do you decide what kind of book it is?

Well, you open it up and read it, silly.

If the first line is, "Once upon a time...." then you know instantly what type of book you're reading.

You know that it's a fairy tale. You know that the author wants you to know that it's a fairy tale. The author has giving you all you need to know about what type of book it is, with those 4 words. You and the author have established a code language. It's not exactly a "secret code," because there's no "secret." It's a simple code, and one which you and the author both agree on, instantly. The author is not going to recite a historically accurate occurrence. If there are dragons and trolls in the book, you aren't going to say, "Wow, this author sure is stupid to think that dragons and trolls really exist." That would be as silly as it would be for you to believe that dragons and trolls really exist, just because they're written about in the book.

Genesis 1 begins, "Once upon a time."

The language of Genesis is that of myth. One doesn't even really need to understand ancient Hebrew to get it. I understood it decades before I learned Hebrew, though when I did learn Hebrew in my 20s it became that much more obvious, in the original language, that it was myth.

To say that the Bible is myth does not deny its divine authorship. On the contrary, symbolic speech is evidence that we are more likely looking at divine truth. After all, do we not believe that Jesus used parables, and that Jesus is God? Jesus used parables, BECAUSE Jesus is God. That's how his disciples knew he was God, and how WE know he's God.

To deny the mythic quality of Scripture is as heretical as to deny the truth of it. It's like complaining that Shakespeare's plays are historically inaccurate, or arguing with historians and believing that Shakespeare's plays are historically accurate. Both are silly, and both show that you're completely missing the point of Shakespeare's plays.

Both atheists, who deny Scripture, and certain Christians who insist on taking it literally, are equally missing the point of Scripture, and have abandoned the words the Author gave us. They're both equally wrong. And they don't even realize it.

Really? I think not.

Genesis 1 does not begin with...once upon a time. It starts with telling us what happened in the beginning.
For instance it says In the beginning God created.

Here is one way we can know Genesis is literal and historical...

Paul wrote a letter to Timothy and in the letter Paul explain some "rules" for the women of the church.
What Paul then did was tell why there is this rule.

Paul wrote in First Tim 2....13 For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression.

Why would Paul base such a "rule" on a myth? The answer is, Paul wouldn't.

Are you ready for another reason or do you want to answer the question first? Why would Paul base such a "rule" on a myth...and event you seem to be suggesting did;'t happen?

 

[CrowCross]

Well, first, it depends on who you mean as "the author(s) of Genesis," and second, you're asking two different questions.

First: if you're referring to the ancient Hebrew scribes, then

(1) I believe that they believed the earth was flat, and covered with a solid dome.

(2) I don't think they believed that the earth was created in six 24-hour days. I think even then, they knew the "it was morning and it was evening, the ___th day" was completely poetic, not intended to be taken literally. But they probably DID believe that earth was relatively recent. They certainly had no idea that it was billions of years old, as we know now, but we know that Hebrews at the time of Jesus didn't take the six 24-hour periods literally, so I think it's safe to assume that the Hebrew scribes knew that, too.

Then why did God write this and give it to Moses?
8 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

Look, according to Genesis 1, the sun and stars aren't created until 3 days after "light" is created. What is the source of this "light" if not the sun and stars? Anyone with even a little common sense and observation would know immediately that this is not literal, nor was it intended to be taken that way.

Have you never read Genesis 21? Could this be the "let there be light"...light?
Gen 21:23 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, because the glory of God illuminates the city, and the Lamb is its lamp.

Second: if you're referring to "God" as the author, then of course the gods are aware that planet earth is round, the sky is not solid, and the earth is billions of years old. Just as Jesus knew that in the parable of the seed and the sewer, it was a parable, not literal. And all his listeners knew that was a parable, not literal.

Are you going to claim God used evolutionism to create man? You do know the bible doesn't teach that.

For the most part, the ancient Hebrews were not stupid. They didn't have as much scientific knowledge as we have today, but they weren't stupid enough to believe that myth was supposed to be taken as literal. Rather, it's modern fundies who are stupid enough to believe that.

Modern fundies are stupid?

Basically you are saying Adam and Eve were a myth. Science has proven Genesis wrong.....despite science saying it can't happen...do you believe a dead man can come back to life after dying on a cross on day 3? Is Jesus also a myth? Your argument seems to be going in that direction....

 

[J regia]

What a load of crap.

And even more so where the bible describes the universe as a dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon of the immovable flat disc-shaped Earth (Isaiah 40:22) which was created less than 6000 years ago (Gen 1 Luke 3), given the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old

 

[Harry Leggs]

And even more so where the bible describes the universe as a dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon of the immovable flat disc-shaped Earth (Isaiah 40:22) which was created less than 6000 years ago (Gen 1 Luke 3), given the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old

You do not know how old the earth is because the so-called guesses cannot be fact-checked (guess is best case since their old-earth assumptions were already uploaded prior so it is not a guess but a confirmation bias) so you are putting our disinformation when you say fact. Your beliefs do not rise to the level of fact. Besides all that, if you believe your mother is an ape then really, what is your problem with flat earth?

 

[J regia]

You do not know how old the earth is because the so-called guesses cannot be fact-checked (guess is best case since their old-earth assumptions were already uploaded prior so it is not a guess but a confirmation bias) so you are putting our disinformation when you say fact. Your beliefs do not rise to the level of fact.

But none of that changes the unequivocal fact that the universe is billions of years old since there are ~2 trillion visible galaxies and the speed of light is ~300,000 km/sec

what is your problem with flat earth?

So what evidence do you have that the universe is a dome-shaped tent attached to the circle of the horizon of the flat disc-shaped Earth as described in Isaiah 40:22?

And what evidence do you have that the Universe is less than 6000 years old as described in Gen 1 and Luke 3?

 

[HillsboroMom]

What a load of crap.

I understand you taking issue with my other statements, but it is a fact that the ancient Hebrews understood the world to be flat, and covered by a solid dome. This solid dome held the "waters above" back.

Of course, we know that this belief was incorrect. I'm not sure I'd call it "a load of crap," but they believed what they did because they didn't have any experience to tell them otherwise.

But you are contradicting every historian in the world, and every Biblical scholar, to claim that the ancient Hebrews never believed this way.

To quote you: You're entitled to your opinions, but not your own set of facts.

The source of light is God, not the sun. Off to church.

If the source of light is God, then Genesis is wrong when it says that before God said "let there be light" there was no light, only darkness.

And if God is the source of light, then who was it that spoke God into existence by saying "let there be light." If God was already the light, then no one would have had to speak the light into existence, because God was already there.

And now you have two gods: one who is light, and one who spoke that light into existence.

You have created for yourself quite a quandary.

See, this is the problem when you insist on taking everything literally.

If it's a metaphor, there is no quandary. No blasphemy. No audacity.

Simply one God, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Would you pass a basic bible literacy test?

Many times. I would probably score better than you.

 

[Harry Leggs]

I understand you taking issue with my other statements, but it is a fact that the ancient Hebrews understood the world to be flat, and covered by a solid dome. This solid dome held the "waters above" back.

You are no following your own rules about over-literalizing.

Of course, we know that this belief was incorrect.

Your interpretation is incorrect. They had the moon and the stars and they used them to mark time according to Gen. 1:14. They knew what evening and morning meant. It is all right there and you cannot connect the dots. Then you assert three years of seminary school? Not reflected in your posts. Does not pass the smell test. And then you say you know about scripture? Not reflected in your posts.

If the source of light is God, then Genesis is wrong when it says that before God said "let there be light" there was no light, only darkness.

No it is not. Besides, that is not the point. It is not about you. It is about what the book teaches and your failure to deduce from the information. You believing or not believing is incidental.

See, this is the problem when you insist on taking everything literally.

You do not follow your own rules so lets not talk about literal when it is you who is doing the literalizing.

Many times. I would probably score better than you.

Not reflected in your posts. All hat and no cattle. Anyone who knows can generally spot a fraud.