Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

Originally posted by JudasIscariot
I think Richard Dawkins sums it up best...

"The deist God is a physicist to end all physics, the alpha and omega of mathematicians, the apotheosis of designers; a hyper-engineer who set up the laws and constants of the universe, fine-tuned them with exquisite precision and foreknowledge, detonated what we would now call the hot big bang, retired and was never heard from again."

Thanks for the post. I don't know where you got this quote but:

Simple question for you:

On the quote above was Stephen Hawking making a “statement of faith” or making a “scientific point”?

That is, which one is a “statement of faith”?

And which one is a “scientific point”?

What say you?


Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

Hi again, edmc:

Please, PLEASE re-read ALL of my earlier posts on this threadlet from the beginning at least TWO more times so that the gist of them can sink in better: clearly, you are not understanding half of what I am showing you.
Also, do yourself a favour and try and enlarge your ‘theological vocabulary’ a bit by looking up any sentences, words or phrases that do not make immediate sense to you – your jejune and confused comments to my postings show you are not in any meaningful way conversant with this material at all – but you DO have tools at your disposal - e.g. you can Google the phrases on the Internet for some background info) since you are clearly not conversant in the terms you bandy about so loosely on your posts.

The most recent messy logic of yours on your last post to me involves a gross misunderstanding of the 2 Creation myth texts in Genesis under discussion - BOTH of which use the same Hebrew term e.g. ADAM – that is, they BOTH occur in the (2) Mutually Contradictory Creation Myths of the Jews found in their canonical book of Genesis in the Torah – and BOTH (naturally) understand ADAM to mean wholly different things – I say naturally because they come from two different writers with two different literary and sociological-religious backgrounds, with (2) wholly different vocabularies, uses of grammar and paleo Hebrew syntax, two different styles of writing (e.g. sentence length and ‘style of utterance’, (2) different Weltanschauungen and 2 vastly different theologies.

Can’t you see that even by reading these (2) creation myths in Genesis in American English?
Here below are some of the key textual references to ADAM in the Two Contradictory paleo Hebrew Creation Myths of the Jews in Genesis – I will (for convenience only) use the text family as these two contradictory myths appear in the late/modern (read: cleaned up) version known as the MT - Masoretic Text – which is a mediaeval vowelled -pointed version currently by Protestants and Rabinnic Jews today (despite all the findings of the 1000 year older texts among the Dead Sea Scroll Material that has come to light (to be studied column by column and consonant by consonant…) since Nov 1946 in recent times -

But of course, one has to remember that today’s modern Roman Catholics do not regard the MT (Masoretic Text of the Hebew canon)text tradition as ‘defiling the hands’ - they have voted to use the Greek LXX Septuaginta (and its paleoHeb textual underlays echoed by the old Latin and by Jerome) which (you should know by now !) followes a slightly different consonantal paleo-Hebrew text underlay (Vorlage) than the Masoretic.

1st Creation Myth (no HAVVAH / or HAYYAH i.e. Eve ‘formed from the rib of Adam’ as in #2)
MT Beresh. 1:26-27

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ; וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל-הָאָרֶץ, וּבְכָל-הָרֶמֶשׂ, הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל-הָאָרֶץ

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם.
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים

And ELOHIM said,
'Let us [now] make ADAM in our images, Yea, even after our likenesses;

and let them have control over the fish of the sea, and over all the birds of the air, and over the cattle [of the field], and over the whole earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps over it.'

Thus ELOHIM created man in His own image, Yea in the Image of ELOHIM he made them, having made them [both] Male AND Female - then ELOHIM blessed them [both]”

Now look at the same writer as he re-appears in Genesis chapter 5:1-2

MT Beres. 5: 1-2

בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ.
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בְּרָאָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמָם אָדָם, בְּיוֹם, הִבָּרְאָם.

In the day that ELOHIM made ADAM it was in the likeness of ELOHIM that he created him both male AND female and blessed them [both], and on the same day they were made, he called THEIR name ADAM.

You can spout nonsense all you want in order to try to deny that the 1st creation myth is clearly speaking of ADAM (the text shows it to be TWO people called ADAM, one MALE and one FEMALE) as if it were the SAME SINGLE HUMAN creature that is depicted in the 2nd Creation Myth (clearly one person called ADAM, who was having a ‘slave/helpmate’ formed for him, who was named DIFFERENTLY – i.e. EVE - whether you call her HAYYAH (‘life-giver) as the earlier texts seem to indicate or as HAVVAH (‘gossipy’) as it appears in the later (e.g. Masoretic) texts etc.

To deny this is to hold your hands to your ears like a spoiled 4 year old child screaming, Mommy ! It JUST CAN’T BE TRUE !

Unfortunately, it is, however. These two creation myths CANNOT be reconciled logically or otherwise – they CONTRADICT each other – therefore they both cannot be ‘literally true’ – at any rate, they are poetical-liturgical in nature as literature and not in any way shape or form ‘modern science’ no matter how much you flail your arms about in disbelief.

Now read this next part very care-ful-ly –

The Genesis Creation Myth # 1 = Gen 1:1 to Gen 2:4a as COMPARED WORD FOR WORD, and thought for thought, with Genesis Creation Myth #2 Gen 2:4b to Gen 4:24) DO NOT MATCH each other AT ALL in either Format, Content, Weltanschauung, Vocabulary, Syntax, Sentence Length, Theology, Word order, Grammatical constructions,The exact ‘name ‘of the particular clan-god of Creation (in each they are different) or even in the ‘order and method of Creation’ – which are also both different.

These facts are INESCAPABLE – and any intelligent discussion of their content must start from there.
Try to understand the import of the above paragraphs: these TWO Creation Myths in the opening section of the Torah literally CONTRADICT each other – therefore they BOTH CANNOT be LITERALLY TRUE even if they were a text like a Modern Science Cosmology Text book – which they are not.

You cannot believe (literally) that BOTH of these Contradictory Creation Myths in the opening of the Torah of the post-Exilic Jews in Genesis are BOTH literally true because they CONTRADICT each other in details : and neither of them were meant to read as a modern Cosmological Science lesson in schools : these are PRIESTLY writings who had their texts recited in the context of LITURGY (probably like the Babylonians, they recited the 1st Creation Myth (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) during the Spring Fertility Festival as part of a TEMPLE ceremony (notice all the POETIC chanted refrains, almost like Antiphonal singing in a temple e.g. “And Elohim saw that it was good” which keeps repeating on each successive ‘day’ of Creation, like the 7-Tablet Enuma Elish Epic of Creation which is likewise in 7-parts.

Also other ‘more local’ pagan shrines made use of 7’s in their own creation myths some of which were stolen (or more politely, ‘adapted’) by the later invading Israelitish triblets entering Canaan with their own ‘portable’ clan god-in-a-tent YHWH which was gradually ‘imported’ into the myriads of ‘pagan’ cults of Canaan)
See : Ras Shamra texts = 24.245 lines 3b—4 ref: Baal’s seven-fold lightnings and thunders, (compare Psalm 29) which depicts Yahweh’st Thundering over the waters of Creation SEVEN times.


Also phrases like ‘Ba’al makes his Voice to be Heard in his 7 Chambers of heaven…’

are common in Baal mythology where he is seen as Enthroned over the Flood Waters of Creation

See also Ras Shamra = RS 24.245 lines 1-3a, = ref Baal’s enthronement over the Flood

‘Behold, Baal sits enthroned, having the mountain as his Throne,
Even the Son of Hadad sits over the Flood in the midst of his holy Mountain
Yea, the god of Zaphon rests in the (midst of) the mountain of his Victory over the Chaos


In the Psalms, we can also see 7-fold literary divisions for specific use in LITURGY (not as modern ‘cosmological science’ to be studied as ‘literal scientific truth’ in a modern classroom !)
See e.g. the 7-fold peal of Ba’al (echoed in the ‘Cannaanite’ Baalite Psalm 29 to Ba’al which was adapted for praise to YHWH (where the original poetically repeated consonant BBBB = HaBu Ba’al Be’nei-elim (‘praise Ba’al, ye sons of the gods !) became : Habu Ha-YHWH Benei –elim, (“praise YHWH ye sons of the gods”)

which ruins the Baalite emphasis on the letter “B” !)
PSALM 29 (another version of this mishmash can be found in Psalm 96 and also
Render glory & power to YHWH, all ye sons of the gods !
Ascribe to YHWH the glory of his name;
worship YHWH in the Splendour of his Cavod ! .

l. The Thunder Clap of YHWH is heard over the Waters of Creation
Yea YHWH the god of Glory thunders over the Many Waters
2. The Thunder Clap (Heb. Qol = ‘thunder’ or ‘sound’ or ‘voice’) of YHWH is full of Power ;
3. The Thunder Clap of YHWH is Full of Majesty:
4. The Thunder Clap of YHWH breaks the Cedars in twain ;
Yea, YHWH cracks apart the Cedars of Lebanon –
He make the Cedars of Lebanon skip calf-like, and Sirion to run like a wild ox.
5 The Thunder Clap of YHWH flashes forth flames of fire ;

6. The ThunderClap of YHWH shakes the Desert
He causes the Kadesh Wilderness to tremble !
7. The ThunderClap of YHWH causes the Oaks to whirl about;
He strips the forest naked, and all within his Temple chant “CAVOD !”
Behold, YHWH sits enthroned upon the Flood Waters -
YHWH sits enthroned as King for eternity !

See : Ras Shamra texts = 24.245 lines 3b—4 ref: Baal’s seven-fold lightnings and thunders, (compare Psalm 29) which depicts Yahweh’st Thundering over the waters of Creation SEVEN times.


Also phrases like ‘Ba’al makes his Voice to be Heard in his 7 Chambers of heaven…’

See also:

Baal gives forth his holy Voice,
Baal discharges the Utterance of his lips !
Behold, his Sacred Voice convulses the Earth beneath
Yea the Mountains quake at his Thunder
East and West Tremble at the Soujnd of his Majesty
The High Places of the Land reel too and fro !
Behold, Baal’s enemies take to the woods,
The Son of Hadad’s foes flee to the clefts of the mountains !

Sound familiar?


These images are very common in the pagan ‘pre Israelite’ Baal mythology where he is seen as Enthroned over the Flood Waters of Creation

See also Ras Shamra = RS 24.245 lines 1-3a, = ref Baal’s enthronement over the Flood

‘Behold, Baal sits enthroned, having the mountain as his Throne,
Even the Son of Hadad sits over the Flood in the midst of his holy Mountain
Yea, the god of Zaphon rests in the (midst of) the mountain of his Victory over the Chaos


See another Ba’alite Psalm sung in the Ba’alite Temples in Canaan:

Ba’al peals his thunder in the Clouds,
yea he flashes his Lightnings to the earth.
Baal gives forth his holy Voice,
Baal discharges the Utterance of his lips !
Behold, his Sacred Voice convulses the Earth beneath
Yea the Mountains quake at his Thunder
East and West Tremble at the Soujnd of his Majesty
The High Places of the Land reel too and fro !
Behold, Baal’s enemies take to the woods,
The Son of Hadad’s foes flee to the clefts of the mountains !


Normally the ‘actors’ in the pre-Israelite Baal Creation myths are all gods - for a quick sample, here is a Myth of Ba’al which opens with the conflict between Baal and the god YAM (the personified Sea).

With the god Kothar the Craftsman’s help Baal defeats Yamm and then faces the task of getting an appropriate ‘house’ (i.e. = a temple) built for him out of the ‘cedars of Lebanon’

Does this also Sound familiar?

Once Ba’al acccomplishes this with the help of the god Kothar, he takes on Mut (Death = whom the later Israelites called MOT or and the Masoretic text adjusts to MAVET to hide its ‘pagan-god origins’ ) and succumbs to him – but he soon reappears and there comes a Great Battle between the two gods until both collapse on the field and the Sun God (Heb. Shamash, Ugarit. Shapshu) intervenes and MUT finally accedes to Baal’s dominion while retaining dominion over the powers of Death and his kingdom of She’ol.

[Echoes of this same ‘pagan’ phrase / idea can be found in the mangled text fragments of the oracles contained in the paleoHebrew Scroll of the Book of proto-Isaiah (see esp. chapter 28:18 -

In that Day your Covenant with Mot (or MT: Mavet i.e. death) will be annulled,
and your agreement with She’ol will not stand –

This very same pre-Israelite (i.e. Canaanite ‘pagan’) phraseology is also found in the other paltry and mangled Greek hand mis-copied textual mess of the later ‘Judeo-Christian-Apocalyptic’ Book of Revelation, whose Greek is among the very worst in the New Testament (almost as bad as the tiresome and childish-Koine-Greek in the 2nd canonical Gospel ‘according to Mark’ whoever he was)

(see Rev. 6:8 =(‘ and its rider was Death and She’ol was mounted right behind him’…)


If you think the heavily stolen-borrowed literature of the Israelites was in any way ‘inspired or unique’ you are in for quite a shock.

Here is another handy-link to help you understand better some of the heavier borrowings of the preliterate Israelite Yahwistic preists who took so much of their ‘creation’ language from the literate and older Canaanite cult centers in Canaan and elsewhere (e.g. Akkad, Babylon, Assyria, Elam and Egypt):

sites.google.com...

I’ll see if I can answer your last posts point by point tomorrow when I have a minute or two, but most of them are not worth wasting time on, unfortunately !

reply to post by Sigismundus


Man... that was a long read.

I'd like to reply to your looong post point by point but before I do that I just have this very simple question.

What makes you believe that the word ADAM does not also mean MANKIND?

Because according to Strongsnumbers explanation ADAM or a.dham also corresponds to:

Strong's H120 - 'adam אָדָם

Transliteration
'adam

Pronunciation

ä·däm' (Key)



1) man, mankind

a) man, human being

b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)

c) Adam, first man

d) city in Jordan valley

Part of Speech ---- masculine noun ----- Root Word (Etymology) = From אָדַם (H119)

Are you saying that ADAM has only ONE meaning? That is, the name of the man ADAM?

If so, where are you basing your conclusion?

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by JudasIscariot
I think Richard Dawkins sums it up best...

"The deist God is a physicist to end all physics, the alpha and omega of mathematicians, the apotheosis of designers; a hyper-engineer who set up the laws and constants of the universe, fine-tuned them with exquisite precision and foreknowledge, detonated what we would now call the hot big bang, retired and was never heard from again."

Thanks for the post. I don't know where you got this quote but:

Simple question for you:

On the quote above was Stephen Hawking making a “statement of faith” or making a “scientific point”?

That is, which one is a “statement of faith”?

And which one is a “scientific point”?

What say you?


Ty,
edmc2

It's not a quote from Stephen Hawking, I said it was Richard Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist and the quote is from one of his books, The God Delusion. I don't absolutely agree with everything he says, but he makes some good points.

What say me? I think you should read the book and come up with your own conclusion.

You can read his book online for free.

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

Originally posted by JudasIscariot

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by JudasIscariot
I think Richard Dawkins sums it up best...

"The deist God is a physicist to end all physics, the alpha and omega of mathematicians, the apotheosis of designers; a hyper-engineer who set up the laws and constants of the universe, fine-tuned them with exquisite precision and foreknowledge, detonated what we would now call the hot big bang, retired and was never heard from again."

Thanks for the post. I don't know where you got this quote but:

Simple question for you:

On the quote above was Stephen Hawking making a “statement of faith” or making a “scientific point”?

That is, which one is a “statement of faith”?

And which one is a “scientific point”?

What say you?


Ty,
edmc2

It's not a quote from Stephen Hawking, I said it was Richard Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins is an ethologist and evolutionary biologist and the quote is from one of his books, The God Delusion. I don't absolutely agree with everything he says, but he makes some good points.

What say me? I think you should read the book and come up with your own conclusion.

You can read his book online for free.

Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion

I got the two mixed up thanks for correting me but my question is for you. I can form my own conclusion but what is it to you?

So again - was the quote a “statement of faith” or a “scientific point”?

ty,
edmc2

You will only see when you get past the passage below by James Allen:

"Truth is the one Reality in the universe, the inward Harmony, the perfect Justice, the eternal Love. Nothing can be added to it, nor taken from it. It does not depend upon any man, but all men depend upon it. You cannot perceive the beauty of Truth while you are looking out through the eyes of self. If you are vain, you will color everything with your own vanities. If lustful, your heart and mind will be so clouded with the smoke and flames of passion, that everything will appear distorted through them. If proud and opinionative, you will see nothing in the whole universe except the magnitude and importance of your own opinions.

There is one quality which pre-eminently distinguishes the man of Truth from the man of self, and that is humility. To be not only free from vanity, stubbornness and egotism, but to regard one’s own opinions as of no value, this indeed is true humility.

He who is immersed in self regards his own opinions as Truth, and the opinions of other men as error. But that humble Truth-lover who has learned to distinguish between opinion and Truth, regards all men with the eye of charity, and does not seek to defend his opinions against theirs, but sacrifices those opinions that he may love the more, that he may manifest the spirit of Truth, for Truth in its very nature is ineffable and can only be lived. He who has most of charity has most of Truth."

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd

 

I'm sorry...but you're stating things without argumentation and you're doing so authoritatively. Until you support your claims with evidence, I'll just ignore them without evidence.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
He who is immersed in self regards his own opinions as Truth, and the opinions of other men as error. But that humble Truth-lover who has learned to distinguish between opinion and Truth...

You really can't see that the creationist side is just as guilty of being "immersed in self" as the others sides?

Of course not because it makes you see your opinions as truth. That is why seekers of truth accept only objective facts. The OP's has taken facts and built upon them with something that he believes is true. That is opinion.

There is a deeper understanding of Self that needs to be known. After you know, you realize. You can know by going here. LINK Listen with your mind and all will be clear. Don't just dismiss this and respond. Take some time to allow yourself to wake to reality. This link will provide what you need. This is the clearest reflection ever written for reflecting on Self, reality and God.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
He who is immersed in self regards his own opinions as Truth, and the opinions of other men as error. But that humble Truth-lover who has learned to distinguish between opinion and Truth...

You really can't see that the creationist side is just as guilty of being "immersed in self" as the others sides?

Of course not because it makes you see your opinions as truth. That is why seekers of truth accept only objective facts. The OP's has taken facts and built upon them with something that he believes is true. That is opinion.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Take some time to allow yourself to wake to reality. This link will provide what you need. This is the clearest reflection ever written for reflecting on Self, reality and God.

I gave it 5 minutes. I'm not the sinner described in the first part "Divine Center". I understand what being a slave to self is. There are philosofies that propose the same ideas without the god part or with another deity instead of yours.

Originally posted by edmc^2

I got the two mixed up thanks for correting me but my question is for you. I can form my own conclusion but what is it to you?

So again - was the quote a “statement of faith” or a “scientific point”?

ty,
edmc2

It's a 'personal' belief, a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition to be true. It can be based on either one.

What's the point you're trying to make?

To deny the universal truth that can be recognized as coming from the greater purpose of the universe is a denial of that truth. God is not against His creation. Sin is imperfection in the early stages of developing sentience. Waking to the fact that your body is a vehicle for consciousness will come. Look close. You are bio-mechanical. There is much more to come when you open to what God offers. It all makes sense, but not apart from recognizing the resident connection to the programmer. We can only now, in this day and age, understand what we truly are. The understanding has been there for us to see since the beginning. Listen to the entire book. This truth reveals itself if you open even slightly. It does not get any clearer than this book. Anything I say pales in comparison.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Take some time to allow yourself to wake to reality. This link will provide what you need. This is the clearest reflection ever written for reflecting on Self, reality and God.

I gave it 5 minutes. I'm not the sinner described in the first part "Divine Center". I understand what being a slave to self is. There are philosofies that propose the same ideas without the god part or with another deity instead of yours.

edit on 8-5-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

reply to post by SuperiorEd


Somewhere early in the thread I mentioned that I once believed in the christian faith. I now believe that the body is a vehicle for the consciousness but contrary to what you are saying this has lead me away from believing that the creator depicted in the bible is real.

Also personal experiences will always hold more sway than any thing that could be contained in that audio book.

Right from the beginning I notice the same thing the OP did with this thread. I used to do the same thing. Force things to match up with the bible. Looking back I realize I was afraid to be wrong.

reply to post by edmc^2

Hi again, edmc –

Perhaps a little clarification might help you here ref: my discussion about ADAM in my earlier post was to show that the TWO (contradictory) Creation Myths of the Jews in Genesis (Myth #1 = Gen 1:1 to 2:4a versus Myth #2 = Gen 2:4b to 4:25) clearly espouse contradictory views of

a. what ADAM is exactly (is he ONE or TWO genders ?)

b. how ADAM came to be –

A very goodd exercise for you would be to read over the two Genesis Creation Myths again closely side-by-side so you can see at once that that the idea of 'ADAM' is very different in each of these (2) Creation Myths in the opening chapters of Genesis.

In my discussion of this topic, if I use terms like ‘Dual ADAM ‘( i.e. Male and Female Created together, as in Myth #1) as opposed to the term 'Single ADAM' (the Man ‘formed’ from the Mud as a ‘single male creature’ as in Myth # 2) it is only as a kind of posting shorthand so don’t be too put off…

Now back to some of the basics of our discussion - since this whole Threadlet revolves around the argument of 'any factual modern scientific accuracy' to be found in the cosmological Weltanschauung ('world-view') of the anccient mangled hand copied texts of the (2) mutually exclusive/contradictory ('pagan-adapted') Creation Myths of the Jews in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a v. Gen 2:4b - 4:25)

Notice for example how in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews [Gen 1:1 to 2:4a, whose ‘Toledoth’ -‘Book of Generations’ is continued by the same [‘P’] writer in Gen 5:1 ff) views ‘Male AND Female’ as having been created TOGETHER as Male AND Female by a word and BOTH the Male and the Female halves of humanity are called ADAM as a – and BOTH are ‘made’ on the 6th ‘day’ of Creation that is, AFTER all the animals and birds etc. have been ‘made’ by a ‘Spell’ or a ‘Word’ (‘poof !’) .

Obviously, the theological implications are different between the two Creation Myths – and of course, as I have said numerous times before – BOTH cannot be literally true ssince they both contradict each other in content, Vocabulary, story line, order of creation etc. –

Remember again that these (2) Creation Myths (and there are several other fragments of other similar ancient Creation Myths of the Jews found throughout the Hebrew Bible, see proto-Isaiah and the Fragments of the Job Poems and some of the more ancient of the Psalms) have specifically 'Liturgical' and not " Scientific" foci - and thus are NOT to be 'taken literally' as you would in a modern science class, but rather as symbolic Metaphors of 'theological truths' held sacred by pre-literate semi nomadic Levantine societies as they came face to face with older, more established and sophisticated cultures - and had to deal with, 'The Other' as best they could in a fast changing political and sociological environment.

Clearly the 1st Creation Myth writer in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a (whoever he/she was), sees the Dual ADAM creatures as PLURAL not SINGULAR (the English translation of ADAM here as ‘Man-kind’ is only marginally acceptable – some modern feminists might not like it much…) where MALE & FEMALE are seen as exact equals – and (unlike Myth #2) ‘females’ were not later ‘formed’ AFTER the mud-formed animals from a Single ADAM (as a sort of ‘afterthought’).

That this 'primary ordering of the human sexes' has obvious sociological implications goes without saying.

One the other hand, the 2nd Creation Myth writer (Gen 2:4b – 4:25) - whoever he/she was - conveys a ddifferent Myth Narrativee and in a wholly DIFFERENT Paleo Hebrew style with a wholly DIFFERENT vocabulary and syntax, and displays a completely different Theology than the writer of Creation Myth #1 - especially when describing the ‘formation of the Woman’ - one can see that it paints a specific ‘subordinate position ‘of women in the society in which the writer lived – especially in its telling of the ‘forming’ of ADAM ‘from the mud’ and the Woman ‘from the side/rib of an earlier mud-formed Single ADAM’ –

One can discern the social position of HAVVAH (‘Eve’, literally, ‘talker, gossiper’) as the story unfolds is [literally] inferior and as we to-day would say,

‘...In the portrayal of Hav vah ('Eve') in the 2nd Genesis Creation Myth (sometims called JE Creation) , we detect a decided 'male chauvinist and sexist' attitude in the representation' of women as 'inferior' - both in their order of Creation in relation to the Male and in their 'alleegedly spiritually weak' nature' - i.e. easilly susceptible to 'temptation' as symbolised by the Snake in the Garden of Q'den- all of which is fairly typical of Patriarchal societies throughout history, and not surprisingly so --since the very scribes who later commited these origin traditions into writing for posterity were almost always exclusively males and saw little practical reason to disscard this chauvinistic bent ....'

--Dr Anthony Gelston (Ph.D. Oxon.) from his Durrham Lecture Series, 1979)

(Hav vah in Creation Myth #2 is a little like the infamous Pandora as portrayed in the Creation Myths of the equally chauvinistic ancient Greeks, it is again, ‘The Female’ who brings EVIL into the world, etc.)

Of course anyone can see that BOTH of these (2) Creation Myths in Genesis use the term ADAM – but they are used in very different ways from each other in each of these (2) Myths.

We can see that the the 2nd Creation Mythmaker in Genesis shows a DIFFERENT ‘worldview’ from the 1st Mythmaker along with the different vocabulary and syntax and ‘style of utterance’ employed by each - we can detect that each of the MythMakers in Genesis are the products of two very different groups with two vastly different views of Creation and of the world (in addition to the language-style of utterance differences).

As we said earlier, notice how in the 1st Creation Mythmaker, the Male-Female ADAM is a collective creature i.e. ‘mankind’ i.e. BOTH male AND female (and moreover ‘created’ by a word in the Image[s] of ELOHIM which is [grammatically] the masculine plural of a Heb. feminine noun ELOAH)

In contrast to this, the 2nd Creation Mythmaker in Genesis specifically denotes the term ADAM as a SINGLE MALE creature who was first ‘formed’ by YHWH-ELOHIM (not LAST as in Myth #1) - and not by a ‘creative word’ alone ( ‘Let there be..and.. Poof ! there Was….) but by ‘formation’ i.e. the 2nd Mythmaker had Single ADAM ‘formed’ out of pre-existing materials i.e. the mud – the same method used to ‘form’ all the various animals’ to be brought to the Single ADAM for naming and…well, copulation –

And at last, when finally when the Single ADAM (not theDual Male/Female ADAM of Myth #1) could not ‘find a mate’ from among all the mud-formed animals brought to him by YHWH-ELOHIM, the god of the 2nd Creation Myth of the Jews puts Single ADAM (as a single creature) into a ‘deep sleep’ and then goes about removing one of his ‘ribs’ in order to ‘form’ HAVVAH/HAYYAH (i.e. ‘Eve’) from it (again, using pre-existing materials).

None of this rib-removing operation for anything like a separate formation of ‘Eve’ (Heb. HAVVAH / HAYYAH) or the process of having to name her separately etc. or ANY idea of a Single ADAM in search of a ‘mate’ appears at all in the 1st Creation Myth (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) – on the contrary, it is specific in Gen 5:1 : ‘MALE AND FEMALE created he them, and he called THEIR name ADAM in the day in which they were made…’

Clear as mud ? (I know… ‘bad pun’ !)

reply to post by edmc^2


Just because you "believe" this to be a fact, it does not make it a fact.
Reading a book that can be discredited in so many ways and believing what it says is not reality. It is a fantasy, juts like Hansel and Gretel.

Advanced Medical Knowledge From The Old Testament


And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13

In numerous instances the Bible contains medical information that far predates man's actual discoveries of related principles in the field of medicine. The medical instructions given by Moses to the Israelites some 3500 years ago were not only far superior to the practices of contemporary cultures, they also exceeded medical standards practiced as recently as 100 years ago. Where did Moses get this advanced information? Following are some examples of the medical knowledge afforded the Israelites in biblical times:

Sanitary Practices

For centuries doctors denied the possibility that disease could be transmitted by invisible agents. However, in the late 19th century Louis Pasteur demonstrated in his Germ Theory of Disease that most infectious diseases were caused by microorganisms originating from outside the body. This new understanding of germs and their means of transmission led to improved sanitary standards that resulted in an enormous drop in the mortality rate. Yet these core principles of sanitation were being practiced by the Israelites thousands of years earlier.

The Israelites were instructed to wash themselves and their clothes in running water if they had a bodily discharge, if they came in contact with another person's discharge, or if they had touched a dead human or animal carcass. They were also instructed to wash any uncovered vessels that were in the vicinity of a dead body, and if a dead carcass touched a vessel it was to be destroyed. Items recovered during war were also to be purified through either fire or running water. In addition, the Israelites were instructed to bury their human waste outside of camp, and to burn the waste of their animals (See Numbers 19, Leviticus 11 and 15, Deuteronomy 23:12).

These sanitary practices without question saved countless lives in the Israelite camps by protecting them against infection caused by unseen germs. Meanwhile, their Egyptian peers were dying by the thousands due to "remedies" that almost always consisted of some amount of human or animal dung1. As mentioned earlier, the sound sanitary practices that we take for granted today only began to flourish about a 100 years ago.
Bacteria

Some time after I wrote these web pages, a Bible skeptic unwittingly showed me yet another example of advanced scientific/medical knowledge in the Bible. He posted a message on a discussion board that ridiculed some verses in Leviticus 13 and 14 that mention leprosy on walls and on garments. He felt this was silly and an error since leprosy is a human disease. What this skeptic was unaware of is the fact that leprosy is a bacteria, a living organism, that certainly can survive on walls and garments! In fact, the Medic-Planet.com encyclopedia notes that leprosy "can survive three weeks or longer outside the human body, such as in dust or on clothing"2. It is no wonder that God commanded the Levitical priests to burn the garments of leprosy victims! (Leviticus 13:52)

Laws of Quarantine

In the same Med-Planet encyclopedia cited above we read that "It was not until 1873 that leprosy could be shown to be infectious rather than hereditary."2 Of course God knew this all along, as His laws to Moses reveal (Leviticus 13, 14, 22, Numbers 19:20). His instructions regarding quarantine to prevent the spread of leprosy and other infectious diseases are nothing short of remarkable, considering that this life-saving practice was several thousand years ahead of its time. Infected persons were instructed to isolate themselves outside the camp until healed, and were to shave and wash thoroughly. The priests that administered care were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly after inspecting a plague victim.

It should be re-emphasized that the Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the last century, when medical advances finally demonstrated the importance of sanitation and isolation during plagues. The devastating black plague of the 14th century that claimed millions of lives was not broken until the church fathers in Vienna began encouraging the public to start following the guidelines as set forth in the Bible. The promising results in Vienna compelled other cities to follow suit, and the dreaded plague was finally eradicated.
The First Antiseptic

Hyssop oil was charged by God to Moses to be used as a purifying agent. Hyssop oil has been shown to contain 50% antifungal and antibacterial agents (Numbers 19:18, Psalm 51:7).

Circumcision and Blood Clotting

For centuries scholars must have been perplexed by God's law of circumcision which required the procedure to be performed on the 8th day after birth (Gen 17:12, Gen 21:14, Lev 12:3, Luke 2:21). Medical researchers recently discovered that the two main blood clotting factors, Vitamin K and Prothrombim, reach their highest level in life, about 110% of normal, on the 8th day after birth. These blood clotting agents facilitate rapid healing and greatly reduce the chance of infection. You can verify with any Obstetrician that the 8th day of life is the ideal time for a circumcision, and that any circumcision done earlier requires an injection of Vitamin K supplement.

Dietary Guidelines

By the 1980s, all the health organizations of the United States had adopted low-fat, high fiber dietary guidelines. This was the culmination of numerous scientific studies that had demonstrated that diets high in vegetables, fruits, and grains reduced the risk of heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases. Secular physicians generally agree that these dietary guidelines that were producing longer life spans were first developed by religious movements founded in the 1800s, particularly by the Seventh-day Adventists. Where did the Seventh-day Adventists get their guidelines? From a meticulous and careful study of the Bible4. It appears man has finally caught up to the dietary recommendations given by God to the Israelites some 3500 years ago!

www.bibleevidences.com...

reply to post by Faith2011


This claim again? It's telling a dude to wash himself (as in his whole body) with running water after he's no longer suffering from a venereal disease...which means that there's no chance of spreading the infection anymore. Hell, this passage also includes sacrificing doves.

It's a ritual purity issue, not a hygiene issue.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Faith2011

 

This claim again? It's telling a dude to wash himself (as in his whole body) with running water after he's no longer suffering from a venereal disease...which means that there's no chance of spreading the infection anymore. Hell, this passage also includes sacrificing doves.

It's a ritual purity issue, not a hygiene issue.

He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."
John 8:47

Originally posted by JudasIscariot

Originally posted by edmc^2

I got the two mixed up thanks for correting me but my question is for you. I can form my own conclusion but what is it to you?

So again - was the quote a “statement of faith” or a “scientific point”?

ty,
edmc2

It's a 'personal' belief, a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition to be true. It can be based on either one.

What's the point you're trying to make?

The point is – by quoting Richard Dawkins are saying that what he said is a fact?

That is do you believe that what he said whether it’s a “statement of faith” or a “scientific point” are based on facts?

In other words – my point is that you have not given much thought why you posted the quote. Was your intention to ridicule or to prove a fact?

I hope you get the point.

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by Sailor Sam

Just because you "believe" this to be a fact, it does not make it a fact.

OK - since I also believe that the Universe and the Earth had a beginning and that the Earth is hanging on “empty space” that “life can only come from life” – do you mean that these are not facts? Can you please explain how and why not?

” Reading a book that can be discredited in so many ways and believing what it says is not reality. It is a fantasy, juts like Hansel and Gretel.”

The Bible says –

That “life comes only from life”. Creator needed.

Of Jehovah God (YHWH), it is written: “With you is the source of life.”—Ps. 36:9.

Thus Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.”

Science has proven this to be factually accurate and can be duplicated over and over.

Or the other hand –

Organic evolution says:

That “life comes from non-life”. No creator needed.

Science says this only a theory and can’t be duplicated.

So which one is based on fantasy?

I know which one is fantasy but do you?

Ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2

Organic evolution says:

That “life comes from non-life”. No creator needed.

You don't say?