I was trying to use physical terminology to explain something that's happening spiritually.  It seems that approach isn't going to work.  It is understood that Jesus was delivered into this world just like any other birth.  The delivering i was talking about was the spirit to the baby if you will.  Or the person of Jesus to the flesh.  It's not saying that no other part could not have done it on their own, but they all work in cooperation with each other, so they all have a part in the tasks regardless of how capable one is.  It's a perfect cooperation.

Think about your job... I'm not sure what you do, it's not relevant, but instead of you being fully responsible for your position and your boss theirs, you'd split the complete job of everyone in your company equally among each of you so that you all had a part of everyones position and all had equal power in the company.   Would that mean that you're not capable of doing your position on your own?  of course not, but by splitting it up evenly, it makes the whole process much easier for everyone.  

I'll then have to ask this, as I tried with razorphreak before:  Did your god always exist as a trinity; did god have no choice but to exist in 3 parts?  In other words, when the salvation of mankind came on the agenda, was it simply serendipitous that the work could be parceled out to the different members ('good thing there's 3 of us, or we'd be scrwed')?  For it seems that if not for the Fall of man, there would be nothing for jesus and the h.s. to do.    

I think when you look at  the many who came to the same conclusion as me verses those who disagree after many years of study can be divided into categories.  Those that still believe after years of studies seldom take the bible literally. They believe in some sort of symbolic truth that reaches to the real world. There are those that believe that the resurrection is real though the stories are not factual.  Those that believe that the resurrection is symbolic for the gospel overcoming finality though not a historical fact. Those that create implausible harmonizations to the point of two cleanings of the temple, repeated occurrences to explain variation etc.;  These people assume their faith is valid and continue to believe regardless of their findings, can not see the findings because of their presuppositions, see the findings and assume their reasoning is wrong and choose to believe infallibility anyway ( Billy Graham).

Those on my side of the camp often come from a inerrancy background who were studious rather than indoctrinated, saw the serious issues and tried to maintain there faith in the face of contradiction until the evidence was overwhelming.  Some come from non-faith backgrounds who study scripture as literature. They do not start from a bias of faith. Some are anti-religious and look far things to tear down the bible with even to the point of absurd propositions.  Some come from other religions and see the bible like many other religious writings as mythic stories.  To me the plausibility would lie with the non-historicity of the bible simply because of the observation of bias in the belief which defends it in areas where other literature would be confidently judged as non-factual.  Research should be objective and not apologetic as those defending the bible or those who would criticize without factual reasons to do so.  A Christian would easily see this trend if analyzing the Koran.  A Muslim would see it analysing the Bible. This is a telling factor to me that the degree of historicity placed on dubious information in the bible is not from good historical research. Rather it is from a prejudice that would defend a cherished belief from a factual conclusion that is a devastation to ones whole life built upon that cherished but delusional belief.

TGBaker wrote:

I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

TGBaker wrote:

Also I do not care for debates. I prefer discussions in that they are more meaningful. The very rules of debate are counte rproductive to an actual dialectic that resolves a topic or question. I think that where we go from here is to actually deal very specifically not a general overall polemic against a system (theism) or the antithetical.  Again I view the theistic position based upon and grounded in scriptural authority. Apart from looking at it systematically I do not think there is any real dialogue going on.

I posted this elsewhere that I think applies. I do not disagree with your distaste about kicking ass. We at most make asses of ourselves:

 

couldn't agree with you more.

TGBaker wrote:

We can assume that there is no god simply in the basis that it is not plausible that there is a god.  Plausibility includes the possibility of something meeting acceptance but being deceptive and wrong.  This has a close analogy by the way to th OA rational validity.   To say that god is implausible means that there is simply nothing convincing that does not violate the laws of science or the understanding of the world as such. 

I would say that God is plausible, but you touch on that below... though my take on His plausibility doesn't exactly fall in your category explained below.  Scientists who support scripture would say that most of God's large miracles with the details presented in scripture can be explained as more of "perfect timing" and not so much against nature.  I hold to the notion that when it comes down to it, it'd be easier for God to use the Laws he put in place to make things happen and it would be a logical approach to action.  Granted he would have the ability to break those laws, but science would suggest that many scientific laws broken could have drastic results... thus God would be aware of that and not cause havoc when attempting say a parting of the sea. 

TGBaker wrote:

We are dealing with weltanshauung. It is much like Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  A paradigm of averaged out theism holds sway to a goodly portion of people. The idea of god is plausible for them.  The several hundred year old paradigm of science (with its underpinning of enlightenment) is replacing sociologically and anthropologically the older paradigm.  Within this paradigm there is no plausibility structure to make meaningful a proposition of god. The presuppositions of each paradigm are largely mutually exclusive. Immaterial vs  physical ... dualism vs monism.  Theists speak a language that is not meaningful to non-theists. It is true in reverse.  There are common crossover concepts but those concepts taken out of their context mean something different when placed in another. Ask yourself how could I construct a plausible god in my worldview.  A theist cannot conceive of removing the raison d'etre of their world. Why does god have not plausibility to us. The other paradigm's language has no reference to our worldview. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausibility_structure 

the problem with this perspective is that it needs to be left alone "without question"... I can't do that.  I question everything.

TGBaker wrote:

 

Within the social scientific study of religion, the problem of plausibility usually revolves around the question of why and how individuals regard their beliefs as real or true. Although some psychological explanations have interpreted plausibility as an almost purely subjective phenomenon, many social scientists focus not only on the content of meaning systems but also on the dialectical relationship between meanings and the broader sociocultural context within which these meanings "make sense" or are plausible.

 

 

 

Any beliefs held by individuals and groups are sustained through sociocultural institutions and processes. But the metaempirical or transcendent nature of religious beliefs makes their plausibility especially problematic. Believers require social support, usually in the form of a religious community or congregation, to authenticate and reaffirm the typically extraordinary truth claims of their faith. Members of the community will likely use a somewhat specialized language and participate in sacred rituals as important means for expressing, sharing, and internalizing their beliefs. For the religion to survive beyond the current generation, believers also must develop appropriate socialization processes to ensure that new and future members accept their faith as plausible.

interesting you say that... for me to come to the faith, i had to reject what my "religious community" was trying to tell me.  I went out on my own and studied up on everything.  Much of what i found is still not agreed upon by most churches including the one I currently attend.  Therefore, i really don't have the social support that this example is suggesting is needed.  In fact, it the opposition that has helped me better understand and accept what I now believe in.

 

 

TGBaker wrote:

 

Some sociologists refer to the concept of "plausibility structure" when describing the sociocultural context or "base" for meaning systems. Societywide structures were likely the norm in earlier historical periods. But in a modern, pluralistic society characterized by rapid social change, many diverse groups, each with its own somewhat distinctive plausibility structure, are forced to coexist. For religious groups especially, the very presence of other denominations, sects, and cults carries with it the implication that alternative truth claims are now available to members. As the relativization of meaning systems continues, each group's confidence in the plausibility or certainty of its shared beliefs may become weakened.

the state of mind I just explained getting strengthened by the opposition is not just my own path... I've found there are a lot of Christ followers (or Christians) that take this same path.  Many of them have been constantly involved in multi-denominational crowds and discuss with opposing believers.

TGBaker wrote:

 

Sociological research into this phenomenon, particularly among scholars interested in the development and career stages of new religious movements, has examined the factors influencing the strength or relative "firmness" of a given religious plausibility structure. Some studies have directed attention to the strategies employed by specific religions in protecting the plausibility of their meaning system from the effects of pluralism and social change. Researchers also have applied the concept to theory construction regarding conversion and defection dynamics as well as the process by which some defectors from religious communities become reintegrated within other groups.

I would agree generally speaking that 'religion" has it's way of manipulating its followers into thinking they're the only right way in turn pinning them against all others who might have a similar following.  It usually goes to an extreme making them think that everyone else is evil and wrong no matter what... (hence the "without question" clause)

TGBaker wrote:

I do think you can move from one paradigm to the other.  Looking at my on experience it was the slow analysis of each presupposition that I held that caused me to assume a necessity of god. One is a dualism where a very ancient idea about a transcendent or immaterial/ non-physical  assumes a spirit   and/or soul. We saw the heavy clinging to this idea in the recent posting.  Even after one moves to a monism one still effects within typical philosophic structures a functional dualism being/existence, being/nothingness. While philosophy is the source of science it also is the source of a lot of presuppositions that cause endless debate within the physics community. Philosophy itself is much like religion. It has some very advanced ideas from a thousand years of reasoning. However many of those things once brought into the paradigm of science are not plausible. What is plausible.  Science has moved us forward. Religion and philosophy have not.  The propositions of Science correspond to reality in a way that theism and philosophy simply do not. The reason is empirical knowledge obtains to the actual world in ways that logical worlds do not. This is not to negate logic. But language is context specific  and logic is ultimately a language. As to how to move one from a theistic or pantheistic view to a scientific world view:  I assume that most belief is underpinned by scriptural authority. I attempt to demonstrate through historical means the non-factual and ahistorical elements in those writings as well as the intent and fabrication of them along the lines of propaganda.  Religion is really easier to deconstruct than philosophy.  Science is another element. For example hey does it make sense that god created plants a day before he created the sun in Genesis? What was the world revolving around?  yada yada yada.  The idea of science first seldom works because they have a caveat of god 's intrusion into the natural order and disrupting it with miracles (heilsgeschichte) When I was a probation officer and got pulled over for speeding I flashed my badge.  No ticket. Causality can be disrupted.  So you go back to the source.  You get nowhere arguing DNA or cosmology when there are parentheticals where god has snuck in. Explanatory gaps.... pre-big bang, consciousness from NCC (neuroscience). and even with evolution and Darwin the creation of life and a life force ( spirit/soul).  The jugular vein is not even god...it is a holy book from which they revision a god for each new culture and era.  Literary criticism of all things holds the future of our civilization.

 

I would agree that "religion" has held us back, but I would disagree that belief in God does the same.  I have stated in the past that I hate religion... mainly for that reason.

You seem to elude that science and Genesis do not agree by saying; "does it make sense that God created plants a day before he crated the sun in Genesis?  

Just to pull that out for a moment, these are assumptions without looking into the context.  Did he "create" the sun before or after?  If he indeed did create the sun after then how was there light?  if you look right at the beginning the first thing created after the heavens and the Earth was light.  What was that light from if it wasn't the sun... or a sun of some sort?  Looking further into the context, verse 16 mentions that God created the sun and the stars...  this would be after it is mentioned that God created plants... Just by reading it, it seems to me as if it's an afterthought of what has been created and not necessarily talking about the sun being created right then and there.  After researching it a bit myself, I find that scholars would agree with that.  Zondervan states that it was likely an afterthought, not that they weren't important, but just separating to make them different.  

By a theoretical take, the light was created... at this point after the plants were created, it seems like he took the 'light' and broke it up and spread it out to make many stars, but kept one close to be the light for Earth.  Either way, scientifically speaking, the only explanation for light would have to be the sun... or a star either close enough to provide light or a star that had supernova and brought an intense amount of light, enough to allow photosynthesis.  

Finally many atheists try to pull out Genesis to say that the order that is said is not logical, despite the English translation, it is understood that it's not to be taken chronologically, but what is important that during a certain period of time, these things were created.  

Conclusion:  God is still plausible through a scientific understanding.

Even a 'plausible' God cannot logically be the Creator of everything, because He is part of everything that exists, so it would require that he be the reason for his own existence.

The only way to avoid the divergent infinite regress problem - what 'requires that God exist', then what requires that whatever it is that requires that God must exist, must itself exist, etc - is to realize that causes may be far less that what they effect, which then makes God unnecessary.

So a 'plausible' God is more like an extremely advanced alien race or intelligence, ie no omni or infinite attributes.

The other assumed aspect of God, as arbiter and source of morality is explicitly counter to all the evidence. The world he allegedly 'created' is rife with injustice and flaws which cause much pain, distress and death, and it would still require evidence and an external standard that God is actually good, even without that fact.

Our own feelings of pain and distress and recognition of what it means to suffer, combined with our need to cooperate to thrive, are all that is needed to construct a practical moral code.

'God' explains nothing, it only raises puzzles, such as the Problem of Evil, and why do the accounts of 'creation', and many other things in the Bible, not match what we now understand about both ourselves and the Universe.

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

If this is indeed true about his initial mission, then I am forced to conclude one of two things. Either he is awful at evaluating the christian "evidence", or he came to realize that writing books telling the deluded what they want to hear would make him rich.

]The typical ancient concept. He created light before anything. No on the 4th day the sky things are made. You are attempting to harmonize a primitive cosmology that says what it says and is consistent with other views of the period. Zondervan is a typical apologetic propoganda. The light was from god.  Look at other creation myths not the sun.  he separates the light from the darkness not the sun from the earth. he does not create the sky until the second day after the light. The third day earth things were made.

 

The fourth day he specifically makes them  the sun, stars and moon in the sky to govern seasons.  The only way you would get your interpretation is as an attempt to harmonize the conflicts with science.  The text is quite understandable without the presupposition of inspiration and simply says what it says. Come on now which meaning is more plausible... what the text says or what one wants it to say for doctrinal harmony. Goodness...

 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ²Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

 

The earth is a formless matter or clay to be sculpted.  The deep is the idea of the chaotic primal ocean as in other myths of that period. God's breath blew over the waters. He was drying out the water for earth.

 

³And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. ⁴And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ⁵And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 

He created light not the sun or stars for he has yet to create the "sky".  So day and night are created before there is a sky or stars or moon or sun... Simple and common idea.

 

⁶And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' ⁷And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. ⁸And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

 

GOD creates the sky to separate the waters ( the blue above the sky) from the waters that the earth floats in.

⁹And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. ¹⁰And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. ¹¹And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. ¹²And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ¹³And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

 

GEE Caposkia he creates the earth and plannt earth thingys after he created the sky and ground. 

¹⁴And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; ¹⁵and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. ¹⁶And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. ¹⁷And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, ¹⁸and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. ¹⁹And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

Simple statement meaning what it says.  These things are created after the earth and plants.  If you contend that these are just an after thought brought in then the writer is still mistaken and God rests on the fourth day because there ain't anything else he does on the fourth day. The text simply means what it says. And of course its WRONG.

 

How bout 13.7 billion years ago there was a collapse of a wave function wherein the universe expanded  and as it did so the forces of physics separated. As the expansion continued to cool matter could form.  Then gases then stars and galaxies and planets and complex chemical reactions, self replicating stochastic processes of dissipative structures and DNA and plants and animals and people and myths and legends and memes.

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I would say that Strobel hardly qualifies as an authority on the subject for which he writes.

Strobel is just one example of many in his category.  I wouldn't call him an "authority" either, but i wouldn't discredit his information be it that his mission in publishing his first book was to show why God is not plausible. 

If this is indeed true about his initial mission, then I am forced to conclude one of two things. Either he is awful at evaluating the christian "evidence", or he came to realize that writing books telling the deluded what they want to hear would make him rich.

That last statement shows you haven't read any of Strobel's books. If he interviewed non-believers in the text of his books (instead of just the preface of one) I'd have no problem with him. He only interviews those who agree with him and poorly plays the "skeptical, hard-nosed interviewer".

TGBaker wrote:

]The typical ancient concept. He created light before anything. No on the 4th day the sky things are made. You are attempting to harmonize a primitive cosmology that says what it says and is consistent with other views of the period. Zondervan is a typical apologetic propoganda. The light was from god.  Look at other creation myths not the sun.  he separates the light from the darkness not the sun from the earth. he does not create the sky until the second day after the light. The third day earth things were made.

Zondervan is a publishing company and a corporation as well.  The person himself... maybe, but the study Bible specifically uses contextual and historical reference to back up any claim made.  apologetics tend not to do that.

In order to conclude that the light was from God and not created by God as the sun in that moment, you'd have to read further into the text than what's there... sure you can try to compare to other myths, but the Bible is not other myths, it's the Bible... yes, that sounds like I'm trying to justify the Bible over other myths, in this case, I'm simply trying to say you can't say apples have to be red because oranges are orange.  Apples have nothing to do with oranges and are not dependent on oranges to exist.   You can't justify your own comprehension of a text because another unrelated text makes such a claim.  There must be sound reason to justify the specified comparison

TGBaker wrote:

 

The fourth day he specifically makes them  the sun, stars and moon in the sky to govern seasons.  The only way you would get your interpretation is as an attempt to harmonize the conflicts with science.  The text is quite understandable without the presupposition of inspiration and simply says what it says. Come on now which meaning is more plausible... what the text says or what one wants it to say for doctrinal harmony. Goodness...

well, i could argue the other point that you could simply be trying to make it not harmonize with science.  It wouldn't be an issue if it was really that clear... you seem to think it's clear as day that the light at the beginning could not have possibly come from the sun yet nothing specifically states that.  due to the lack of scientific knowledge of the writers of that time, it's likely that they really just didn't know and could easily assume either way.  Due to lack of reference I don't think either of us can empirically conclude on such, but it's naive to assume you could come up with a empirical truth from that.

TGBaker wrote:

 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. ²Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

 

The earth is a formless matter or clay to be sculpted.  The deep is the idea of the chaotic primal ocean as in other myths of that period. God's breath blew over the waters. He was drying out the water for earth.

Ok, so then you're picturing it as a completely non science act going on and had nothing to do with what we would understand to be natural production of land...  You were a young earth creationist, weren't you

TGBaker wrote:

 

³And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. ⁴And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. ⁵And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 

He created light not the sun or stars for he has yet to create the "sky".  So day and night are created before there is a sky or stars or moon or sun... Simple and common idea.

Ok, we can assume that, but then again, what is the light?  We could say that the light is from God himself... Revelation talks about how the new city will be lit with the Glory of God and there are many references throughout scripture that state a "glow" about people who were very close to God or filled with teh spirit... but then again if this is the light being referenced here, it would make sense then that it was always there and that God didn't create it... either that or we'd have to assume that God had absolutely no glory or whatever the spiritual glowing is before he decided to "create it" which then God's glory isn't really glory by definition, but just a created light.  This would go against the complete scriptural description of God.   So it's hard for me to accept your theory that its' not the sun... unless you can come up with a better explanation of what the light is exactly.  

"The light is from God" is a very Sunday School answer and I know you're smarter than that.  What else do you have.

TGBaker wrote:

 

⁶And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' ⁷And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. ⁸And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

 

GOD creates the sky to separate the waters ( the blue above the sky) from the waters that the earth floats in.

⁹And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. ¹⁰And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. ¹¹And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. ¹²And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ¹³And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

 

GEE Caposkia he creates the earth and plannt earth thingys after he created the sky and ground. 

it makes rational sense... this mysterious light also must have had some radiation of sorts to allow photosynthesis otherwise, the laws put in place by God would not work and he'd have to change them, why change them if they work fine the way they are?  The God of the bible would have known the complications and worked them out.

I know you're trying to get at the point that this could not have possibly happened and that God is not real, but all i'm seeing on your part is speculation.  You've got to give me more than excuses.

TGBaker wrote:

¹⁴And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; ¹⁵and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. ¹⁶And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. ¹⁷And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, ¹⁸and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. ¹⁹And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 

Simple statement meaning what it says.  These things are created after the earth and plants.  If you contend that these are just an after thought brought in then the writer is still mistaken and God rests on the fourth day because there ain't anything else he does on the fourth day. The text simply means what it says. And of course its WRONG.

I see what you're saying... I read through it myself.  What is the literal Hebrew of `16?  Does it in any way suggest that the sun had just been created right here and now after all the others?  A simple contextual implication of "after all these things" or something along those lines would support your conclusion, otherwise, again it's only speculation.

TGBaker wrote:

 

How bout 13.7 billion years ago there was a collapse of a wave function wherein the universe expanded  and as it did so the forces of physics separated. As the expansion continued to cool matter could form.  Then gases then stars and galaxies and planets and complex chemical reactions, self replicating stochastic processes of dissipative structures and DNA and plants and animals and people and myths and legends and memes.

yea, that makes sense.  There's no explanation scripturally on exactly HOW God did it.  There is suggestion that there is "self replicating stochastic processes." e.g. 'let the Earth bring forth...'... not 'God formed the plants... or built the plants....'  

You seem to think I'm trying to make it look like it is comparable to science as if it's impossible to do so.. granted my comparison has some speculation as to exactly how it happened, but it makes sense to me... though my speculation isn't any more speculation than you are throwing in trying to make it look like it can't cooperate with scientific law.  Maybe I'm missing something here, but I just dont' see anything beyond speculation.  

The light is what's in question.  The naive Sunday School answer is... "it's from God" (cue church choir AAAAAWWWWWWW)   The scientific explanation, the sun had to be there in order for plants to grow... if you can't see it any other way than that it was from God and not the sun, then you'd still have to logically conclude that the light being provided from God allowed for photosynthesis or his plan would not have worked... to say that a light is from God is to suggest the light has any possibility of properties and very likely could have sustained life therefore nullifying any possibility of this not being possible if God is in fact real.

 Look I know what the **** Zonervan is was AND i OWNED HALF THEIR PUBLICATIONS.

i HAVE NOT GOT TIME TO PLAY THESE CHILDISH GAMES.

The text says what it says you have to add to the text because it does nto fit with a contemporary view of the world, I was not a young earther and what are your talking about.

 There is not explantion that god did it other htan what the text says. You simply do not like what the text actually says or you can live with a cosmology where god's light sustains plants until he creates the sun, moon and stars..... 

The naive Sunday school  answer is that it does not mean what it says because it would conflict with what we know of the world. If it did then it would be simply written by a person and not god. And that niave response would be right.

TGBaker wrote:

Sorry Lets start from scratch then. I apologize in that I wound up in the hospital with AML Luekemia and chemo.o I've been a bit pissy.

geez man, I'm sorry to hear that. You have every right to be pissy and I completely understand. Take it easy and please don't let our conversations stress you out. You have enough to deal with. Let's just keep it friendly and fun.

TGBaker wrote:

But lets then assume Genesis says that god created the unviverse. Which it does as do many creation myths. I guess the question is that a precursor for grounding the text in some type of authority. Or does it simply say that as many other texts that our god did it? To me the quality of info would at least some degree be self-authenticating. And I think that was the point of looking at any propostional statements in a story of creation. Do the statements really simply reflect the world view of the time of the writing about a universal strutcture or do they reflect aspects that are relevetory, ontological or phenomenological beyond the writing of an individual or story telling group (tribe) such that logical and/or new incite is found by the recepient of the statement narrative.

If you strictly take the beginning part of Genesis (the creation story) and compare it to other long separated cultures stories of creation, it's eerily similar. so much so that the process and method described... as elaborate as Genesis... are almost identical with a few different twists with methodology and names... which leads me to believe there is a single source for all of those creation stories. To claim any of these stories self-authenticating, I think we would need to take into consideration the sources of all the cultures creation stories and their intentions of writing them down and how they came to understanding these stories. This task would be impossible today.

Instead, why would all these stories be so similar if in fact they were independently created? I think we can come up with some logical theories as to why and how this could be the case.

More to the point, cap, why do you assume the Genesis story was first?

 I appreciate your question. How and why would we assume a myth to be the original one apart from our own incultration in that tradition itself?

TGBaker wrote:

 I appreciate your question. How and why would we assume a myth to be the original one apart from our own incultration in that tradition itself?

If we're assuming myth then it takes it to a whole different level.  Figuring out an original myth is far different than figuring out an original source in history.  

TGBaker wrote:

 I guess it is as simple as why would we assume that they are anything other than fabrication of a mythic mind.

This I think  could apply to both your posts... you claim it's not historical in your next post, yet there is support in history of many biblical happenings... including the Jesus character.  To claim any of it is not historical is to say you have a means of filling in the gaps where the Bible stories are said to have taken place.  otherwise you're only  making an assumption.  Looking through the history myself, it seems that there is very little evidence in history that we can use at this point to support scripture, however, there is no evidence what-so-ever that I have come across that would support the idea that any of the stories of scripture couldn't have happened.  

..necessary then to go into historical validity of genesis and/or a discussion of Jesus and who he was assumed to be by different perspectives.

Caposkia wrote: "The Genesis story is what we have".