17 Dec 2009, 3:16 am
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Dec 2009, 3:27 am
17 Dec 2009, 3:28 am
17 Dec 2009, 3:33 am
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Dec 2009, 3:52 am
17 Dec 2009, 4:22 am
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Dec 2009, 9:16 pm
17 Dec 2009, 10:12 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
17 Dec 2009, 10:23 pm
18 Dec 2009, 2:37 pm
18 Dec 2009, 5:13 pm
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
19 Dec 2009, 2:23 am
19 Dec 2009, 6:13 am
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
19 Dec 2009, 7:12 am
21 Dec 2009, 4:44 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Why interpret Genesis 1 to 11 in a straightforward manner, using essentially the historical-grammatical hermeneutic method of exegesis? And why not interpret the epic of Gilgamesh, or the Odyssey of Homer, or the Aeneid of Virgil, or a physics textbook in the same manner? The answer is that all written material should be read in a straightforward manner, taking prose as prose, poetry as poetry, narrative as narrative, description as description, etc. The historical aspect considers the writing styles of the culture of the author and the particular writing style of the author as evidenced internally to the manuscript or manuscripts of the author. The grammatical aspect considers, here's a surprise, grammar! The mythologies of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Celts, Native Americans, Native Australians, et cetera, should all be interpreted in the same manner, just a Genesis.
Just because something is written in narrative form, doesn't mean it is meant to be taken literally. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is a narrative with deep meanings but no one actually believes it. Genesis, which by the way is actually derived from a few other creation mythologies around the middles east, might still have been written to convey meanings. It is far from clear that it was meant to convey actual history. The same is true of other mythologies.
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If I were to go into the details of why I think the other accounts of the origin of the universe shouldn't be considered history, then I would probably be accused of employing the argument from incredulity. Have you actually read Genesis? Have you actually read any other creation accounts? Do you think that the Earth is the result of two giants fighting, one killing the other and the dead one is the Earth? How about a goddess throwing a rock and it growing into a man, Enkidu I think his name was, do you think that is historically likely? Do you think that if God omnipotent exists, that God could command things into this temporal existence?
The same could be said about God removing one of Adam's ribs and shaping it into Eve. By the way, men and women have the same number of ribs so that is likely a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew, the word for rib has a few other meanings so it is likely that it's referring to some other bone.
P.S. As I was replying to your post on this on Saturday, lightning struck the internet router. Maybe God's trying to tell me something
. But we had to get a new modem and that's why I didn't respond sooner.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
23 Dec 2009, 4:58 am
Jono wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Why interpret Genesis 1 to 11 in a straightforward manner, using essentially the historical-grammatical hermeneutic method of exegesis? And why not interpret the epic of Gilgamesh, or the Odyssey of Homer, or the Aeneid of Virgil, or a physics textbook in the same manner? The answer is that all written material should be read in a straightforward manner, taking prose as prose, poetry as poetry, narrative as narrative, description as description, etc. The historical aspect considers the writing styles of the culture of the author and the particular writing style of the author as evidenced internally to the manuscript or manuscripts of the author. The grammatical aspect considers, here's a surprise, grammar! The mythologies of the Sumerians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Celts, Native Americans, Native Australians, et cetera, should all be interpreted in the same manner, just a Genesis.
Just because something is written in narrative form, doesn't mean it is meant to be taken literally. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is a narrative with deep meanings but no one actually believes it. Genesis, which by the way is actually derived from a few other creation mythologies around the middles east, might still have been written to convey meanings. It is far from clear that it was meant to convey actual history. The same is true of other mythologies.
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If I were to go into the details of why I think the other accounts of the origin of the universe shouldn't be considered history, then I would probably be accused of employing the argument from incredulity. Have you actually read Genesis? Have you actually read any other creation accounts? Do you think that the Earth is the result of two giants fighting, one killing the other and the dead one is the Earth? How about a goddess throwing a rock and it growing into a man, Enkidu I think his name was, do you think that is historically likely? Do you think that if God omnipotent exists, that God could command things into this temporal existence?
The same could be said about God removing one of Adam's ribs and shaping it into Eve. By the way, men and women have the same number of ribs so that is likely a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew, the word for rib has a few other meanings so it is likely that it's referring to some other bone.
P.S. As I was replying to your post on this on Saturday, lightning struck the internet router. Maybe God's trying to tell me something
. But we had to get a new modem and that's why I didn't respond sooner.Sorry I've not been quick to reply. I've been having family difficulties with my stepdad, mom, and sister. Along with being sick all day yesterday from Taco Bell food, there hasn't been much thought to arguing ad infinitum.
Which creation accounts is Genesis supposedly derived from? Which parts of Genesis? Just 1-11, or all 50 chapters?
The instance of God removing a rib and making Eve could very well be a form of cloning without using the y chromosome.
Consider running the modem cables through a surge protector or a UPS (but not both as the circuitry don't interact too well together).
