Can’t one be a CREATIONIST without dragging in the 2 Jewish Creation Myths in Genesis?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:12 PM
Can’t one be a CREATIONIST without ALWAYS dragging the TWO (Contradictory) Paleo-Hebrew Creation MYTHS (in Genesis) into the discussion EVERY SINGLE Time?

My question is actually a very simple one:

Why is it that (almost) all English-speaking persons who call themselves ‘Creationists’ consistently drag YHWH (i.e. Yahweh, the clan god of post-Exilic Israel, whose priests –many of which had been exiled into Assyria, Egype and Babylon where they picked up their weird vocabulary and raw material—were the ones eventually responsible for what went into ‘the Bible’) and the TWO (contradictory) Hebrew Creation-Myths in the ‘Bible’ into every single ‘discussion’ of ‘Creation-Science’, --as if no other Creation Myths in the world even Exist?

This seems to be especially true when it comes to discussing ‘Evolution’ v. ‘Creation’ and what actually ‘should be taught in US public schools’ ref: the ’Origin of the Universe’ in ‘Science’ classes—in fact there are more than 6,000 Creation Myths from around the world extant today (more are being found every year, some of them still being transmitted orally by some cultures) and yet hardly ANY of our children are EVER exposed to these treasures in public schools, even for the sake of simple ‘literary comparisons’ !

Now since this whole messy subject seems to be VERY touchy for a lot of English speaking persons on ATS these days, please TRY to keep a Civil Keyboard under your Fingertips…and whenever possible, stick to the FACTS and the TEXTS to which you might refer or from which you would like to make (ahem…) ‘quotations’. Remember the ‘Bible’ was NOT written in English, so get used to the idea of translation and textual problems with foreign (especially ancient) hand copied and / or orally transmitted ‘mythical literature’.

If you are one of those persons who is non-conversant with the paleo-Hebrew scriptures in their original language (yet still calls himself a Bible Believer) please BEAR WITH those on this THREAD who might be more conversant in matters of the text(s) traditions (such as have come down to from hand written copies from antiquity) and the difficulties for 21st century persons to understand fully the original language being employed, especially on the subject of CREATION MYTHS, about which most ‘Americans’ (for whatever reasons) seem woefully ignorant.

Now if you are one of those persons who claims to ‘believe’ every word of the ‘bible’ and yet never bothered to read Genesis chapter 1:1 to Genesis chapter 2:4a (helps to use a highlighter of one colour here) and then ADD Genesis chapter 5:1-3 (same writer as 1:1) then COMPARE line for line the Creation Myth # 2 in Genesis (Chapter 2:4b to 4:26—which you can highlight with another colour highlighter of your choice), you might be in for quite a shock to your system.

You can file all this info under the heading : Things My Sunday School Teacher (or Rabbi !) Never Dared Teach Me…

To get a beginner’s intro to the material that would be discussed on this thread (and this discussion is not for theological ‘sissies’ but more for persons who REALLY want to get a the truth of this issue) a good place to start is a high school level book called
WHO WROTE THE BIBILE? By Richard Elliott Friedman, a student of the great Frank Cross of Harvard University.

Here is the ISBN Information: Paperback: 304 pages Publisher: HarperOne (March 21, 1997) Language: English ISBN-10: 0060630353 & ISBN-13: 978-0060630355 Product Dimensions: 7.9

Most newcomers to Genesis (and other Torah) material find that they have to read the first 4 chapters of Friedman’s rather over-simplified book sometimes three or four times before they ‘get it’ – not that it’s rocket science, but mainly because it’s all brand new information for them (more’s the pity !) and they end up asking themselves why their Priests, Ministers or Rabbis never EVER once told them about these things (hint: they don’t want you to know !)

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Sigismundus]

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 03:15 PM
As the ‘Great Saint’ ((!) Augustine once wrote,

“There are many things in this world which are patent Falsehoods but the general run of people must be told to believe as absolute fact, and likewise there are many other things, perfectly true in every detail, which the common herd must never be told about, ever.” – from ‘The City of God’ )

Kinda sums it all up, don’t it?

Time now to check out the TWO CONTRADICTORY Creation Myths in the Book of Genesis

Creation Myth # 1 (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) aka P-Creation Myth v. Creation Myth # 2 (Gen 2:4a to 4:26) aka JE-Creation Myth

Name of the Deity : ELOHIM trans. KJV ‘God’ (plural, govering a singular verb e.g. bara, ‘he created from zero’)

ORDER OF CREATION (non scientific, with plants being ‘created’ BEFORE the Stars or the Sun—so much for photosynthesis !)

Day 1: the heavens, earth, light, day and night. Day 2: the "Dome" (Heb, Req’iak = ‘bowl’) that separates the waters below from the waters above the Dome Day 3: dry land and vegetation are created Day 4: sun, moon, then the stars (NB: stars according to this Myth were created after the earth, vegetation sun and moon !)

Day 5: water creatures and birds. Day 6: land animals; humankind (both male and female created together ‘and he called their name ADAM). The number of human beings created is not specified. ELOHIM here gives to people "every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth for food" (Gen 1:29) -- no prohibitions. Day 7: ELOHIM rests, and blesses the 7th day.

v. Creation Myth # 2 (Gen 2:4a to 4:26)

Name of the Deity : YHWH ELOHIM trans. KJV ‘THE LORD God’

A Pre-Existent Earth ‘formed’ from some pre-existing matter then the Heavans ‘formed’: no rain yet but a spring would well up and water the ground, from mud, ADAM was ‘formed’ alone without Hayaa (Eve). Presence of a Garden, and a place called Qeden – ADAM is placed there by YHWH ELOHIM ...

The Garden includes Fruit Trees e.g. the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and ELOHIM instructs Lone Adam to till and keep the garden of Eden, but not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (no Eve yet !) YHWH Elohim notices that Man is alone and wants to find him a sexmate:

YHWH Elohim ‘forms’ for Adam the animals and birds and Man names them but cannot reproduce with them:
YHWH Elohim causes ADAM to fall asleep,
pulls out some flesh from his side and ‘forms’ Hayyah (‘Life Bearing’)…the story of original sin then ensues with the Talking Snake Myth…….

Why on earth would thinking persons ever take anything contained in these 2 contradictory Hebrew Morality Creation Myths as ‘Science’ to be taught to school children alongside Biology and Chemistry which makes use of such things as the Empirical Method?

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

I don't think it's so much important that people broaden their conception of Creationism beyond the myths of the Abrahamic Trinity. (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

Ultimately it doesn't matter what Creation Myths you believe... because you are still ignoring the reality of the very Creation in favor of myths.

One can be a Creationist without believing any myths at all, because to say that you believe in a creator god is merely an article of faith. Anything beyond the point of creation invariably intersects with reality after it has been set in motion by an assumed first mover, and thus becomes a statement on reality, which should logically then be substantiated by empirical evidence in that reality.

It's the contextual/literary difference between a character and novel. One can believe a Joseph character existed - even if based on sparse circumstantial evidence - without having to believe that he had an amazing technicolor dreamcoat adventure.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Lasheic]

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:10 AM
Being a creationist, and to some extent obsessed with all kinds of ancient literature, the Bible included, I have often come accross the same problems you refer to. After I have said I believe life is technology and that some creator(s) made us, the automatic response is "How can you believe the universe is 6000 years old, you stupid frog?".

However. Our civilisation is about 6,000 years old, and the first signs of town structures are found in today's Iraq, and is often refered to as the Sumer civilisation cituated uppon the red ocre plains between the rivers of Mesopotamia. One of the most important Sumerian cities was Ur, which means Light in Hebrew (compare with Gen. 1:1ff). Ur was the city the main Hebrew patriarch, Abraham, was born in, and later left on his long walk to the Promised Land.

Much of the same can be said about the Caucasian branch of Homo Sapiens, in the rural areas South and East to the Black Sea. Pale skin, blue/green eyes and red/blonde hair was common among Neanderthals, but not among Homo Sapiens. I believe these two branches mixed and produced offspring which later became the Caucasians. The Hebrew oral tradition carried on from generation to generation since ancient times, together with the different Talmud traditions and rabbinic commentaries, billions of pages if it was all written down, add meat to the bones of the Tanakh and other important Hebrew books. The creation of Adam in Genesis 2, according to these traditions (and Geneis itself if you look closely), is not the creation of humanity as a whole, but merely a branch of humanity (there were many other people around when Cain moved to Nod for instance). Rabbis often explain creation of Adam as the first white man.

According to Targ. Yer. to Gen. ii. 7, God took dust from the holy place (as "the center of the earth"; compare Pirḳe R. Eliezer xi., xx.) and the four parts of the world, mingling it with the water of all the seas, and made him red, black, and white (probably more correctly Pirḳe R. El. xi. and Chronicle of Jerahmeel, vi. 7: "White, black, red, and green—bones and sinews white; intestines black; blood red; skin of body or liver green")

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:27 AM
well it depends on how you look at things honestly.

Personally, I myself, am a creationist. But I am not a creationist by the standard creationist belief.

My belief is that Genesis was a project by intelligent beings to populate our planet. We were created by a higher power. but not by a single god, just a higher species of beings.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by Sigismundus

You absolutely can! However, the atheists will still create a straw man argument for you so that they can beat it down by telling you what you believe...

Ooops, snark vomit!

posted on Sep, 6 2009 @ 01:34 PM
You sure can Sig, You can be a creationist all day long and nobody will give a flying flip.

But when you come along and use flame-bait tactics towards the deity we belive in, then we defend said deity and you in turn will then call us sensitive to our "myth." If you really think about it is you who is being sensitive because your minority point of view isn't the one being exalted.

Look at how you word things:

"without ALWAYS dragging the TWO (Contradictory) Paleo-Hebrew Creation MYTHS"

The fact remains - you are in the minority of what mankind believes.

Here is another one:

"consistently drag YHWH"

Again - YHWH is part of the norm and this norm has been consistent through the course of history.


"as if no other Creation Myths in the world even Exist?"

Now that is a deep question. Why do you think the teachings of Zeus didn't stick yet YHWH's did?

This is precious:

"this discussion is not for theological sissies"

Okay. I've read enough.

What is the exact purpose of belittling your peers?

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 08:08 AM
Someone (forgive my lack of citation here) once said words to the effect that, the most astonishing thing about reality is that there is anything here at all. It's true.

The fact that there is anything here at all leads one to wonder how it got here.

One is tempted to answer the question by saying that it must have been created. After all, the only other option is that it has always been here.

If it was created then a creator must exist, but who created the creator? Some people say that the creator has always been here.

However, the notion that an eternal, uncreated creator has always been here, does not have more logical integrity than the notion that the reality we live in has always been here.

In fact it is a less substantial (no humor intended here) assertion from an empirical point of view.

Some religions get around the problem by welding creator and creation together and saying that the whole shebang has always existed. Even science is now starting to hint that the whole materialistic shebang might be active in a mental way, which is a similar notion.

This is a big topic.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by ipsedixit]

posted on Sep, 7 2009 @ 07:44 PM
Sure . . . one can be. The problem is that there was no Creationism movement, nor would there be, without fundy-christianity. They "stole", for lack of a better word, the concept to push their religious agenda and try to "disprove" scientific fact.

Another book that the "bible is truth" crowd might want to check out is Friedman's "The Hidden Book of the Bible" where he takes the portions of text by the different writers/eras and combines them to show the complete stories as they were meant to be. Also delves into why the different myths were synthesized to form one "great" text.

Regardless of your beliefs, if you want creationism to be taken as a serious subject of study . . . you still need to come up with a testable/repeatable hypothesis. However, this shouldn't stop you from believing what you will.

posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 01:26 PM
Hi Myrtales

Perhaps you are assuming (like most 'bible believers') that the 2 contradictdory Yahwistic creation myths in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a and 2:4b to end of chapter 4 are more 'successful' in their promulgation among the common herd than, say, the older pagan myths from whence they were taken (e.g. Enuma Elish of the Babylonians etc.) because the Genesis Yahwistic myths are somehow more 'true''---whereas 'all the other pagan myths' failed to get a longer public viewing because in some way they are 'false'--is based on an erroneous logic. And is probably more applicable to American 'believers' than the rest of the world who have a larger exposure to non-zionist belief systems.

The truth is the Genesis Yahwistic Creation Myths are only marginally more successful in terms of public awareness because the Yahwistic propaganda machine is so much older and more sophisticated via the publishing houses in the US--especially of the American English versions of the 'bible' (and getting many of the world's 'ignorant-oxen' gentiles to believe that ONLY the clan god of the Jews exists, to the exclusion of all other gods and world-views was quite a coup for this group who still have quite a foothold in the major publishing print houses, say in New York and other larger cities...

For example, when an American writer speaks of GOD, 99% of the time the reading public understands him to mean 'the clan-god of the Jews' i.e. the one in the 'Bible', and not, say, Shiva or Brahma or Zeus or Osiris or Amun Ra or the Great Spirit of the Amerindians etc.

But now we have the Internet, and more Universal messages are required to gain 'universal acceptance' and not just pro-Zionist myths stuffed down our throats as 'facts'--we are nowadays addressing the WORLD Community, 99.999 percent of which is a gentile audience (who today have much less patience in having to swallow a fake-universalist 'Zionist' (i.e. Yahwistic) Weltanschauungen (such as in the Genesis Creation Myths) than say, 'mindless' non-critical thinking persons who style themselves as 'Christians' (whatever that means !) did during the 20th century).

It's a new Day...and time to throw out the narrowminded zionist propaganda of the past, and start getting 'everyday average' people (from gradeschool age onwards) to begin finally to notice that there is a bigger world of mythic literature out there (and not just Genesis !) when discussing such a vast subject as the 'Creation' of the Physical Cosmos, which in reality goes FAR beyond the childish outdated Weltanschaung of the pre-and-post Exilic Yahwists who wrote the Genesis Myths to address their own view of the world once they had been shockingly exposed (beyond their will, i.e. in forced exile abroad) to older and far more sophisticated literature from which they borrowed so much of their vocabulary and tweeked it to their own ends.

[edit on 8-9-2009 by Sigismundus]

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:09 PM
I can't quite remember which were what, but the two creation myths reflect the divided Israel-Judah. The first belong to Israel (the ten tribes -- 12 - Levi and Judah), I think, and the other one is courtecy of the other kingdom. The two are almost diametrical oposites. The odd couple....

posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 08:22 PM
Not True, I'm a "Creationalist" and have no interest whatsoever in Judeo/Christian beliefs. Not sure how you got to the conclusion all "Creationalists" are basic their beliefs on ancient marketing tools.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 03:08 PM
What would you call a person that believes not only in the teachings of the historical Jesus (or whatever his real name is) but that he actually lived? I thought a Christian. Does Jesus ever say that the accounts of Genesis are what really happened? I don't think that should be one of the stipulations for calling yourself a Christian Creationist.

I don't believe the creation accounts found in Genesis because they are so fantastic as compared to evidence. I do understand that most of the remainder of the Old Testament is basically a history book. A history book mind you with more fantastical tales that I would compare to any other culture's myth-filled accounts.

I would love to know, Sigismundus, what you believe is the true story of human and/or Earth's creation.

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:21 PM
It would be nice, but that poorly written fairy tail also say's "slaves, obey your masters" sorry I can't quote chapter and verse but I'm sure the white power people may be among those to ask. It may be more taste full to start by asking an expert on the Bible.

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 03:20 AM
Interesting, but if you are talking about the bible it is a series of generalization where as the ultimate interpretations are left to the reader. As you know much of its details are lost in technical translation and written from word of mouth histories. Why cant creationism and evolution co-exist? It can. God created everything in existence and everything that is to be in seven days. God created it all and has planned everything to run as a symphony until the music stops, and he only knows when that will be. As he created he set into motion every act that would take place millions of years into the future. As he was resting on the seventh day, he knew that you would be reading this message at this time. He knows the number of hairs on every person’s head. I do not thing we are meant to understand or question God but maybe some day you know the answer to your question. He knew you would have that question before you did. Ever wonder how long is a day for god in earth years?

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:18 PM
reply to post by redneck13

Hi Redneck -

It would seem that the god to whom you refer in your post is YHWH the post-Exilic clan god of the Jews (all that 6 or 7-days stuff - which of course was stolen, or more politely, 'adapted' from the 7-Tablets of Creation known to the Babylonians, Akkadians, Assyrians and their cultural ancestors, the Sumerians when the priests at Jerusalem were exiled into Babylon (c. 587-536 BCE)

Why do people automatically jump on to the Jewish bible band-wagon for their spiritual answers when speaking about Creation?

Why not jump on to the Hindu Scriptures, or to the ancient German creation myths, or to the ancient Amerindian or Mayan myths of creation if they want to believe in a material 'creation' of the universe from a divine mind (or group of divine minds !) - these other myths are just as old if not older and have ZERO to do with the internal politics of ancient Israelites or their zionist-racist 'chosen people' bible or the vicious clan god of the Jews who likes nothing better than to exterminate Amalekites...!

Presumably one can be a 'creationist' and not believe in the existence of the xenophobic-racist-sexist clan-god of the Jews, i.e. the god of the Bible? Or am I expecting too much?

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

You seem to have taken a scholarly approach to your creation theory. The Stolen Jewish version is what we have been hand fed for centuries from the King and the church during their quest of power. I would like to investigate deeper into the origin of creation however, in my life I have to exist with other priorities. I believe that many of the creation text are very similar, although some are different. I always thought it was interesting that the ancient text of the many varied cultures tend to agree about the great flood. To me it is not that important as to the source of the information but the information it self. When you are taught as a Christen, you are taught to believe in the bible. However, I focus more on living word of Christ and less on the Old Testament. It less important how we got here but more important what we do while we are here

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by redneck13

Hi Redneck--

You wrote :


"...the stolen Jewish version is what we have been hand-fed for centuries from the King and the Church during their quest of Power... to me it is not that important as to the source of the information but the information itself.

When you are taught as a Christen, you are taught to believe in the Bible. However, I focus more on living word of Christ and less on the Old Testament. It less important how we got here but more important what we do while we are here..."


I certainly hear what you are saying - but please remember that the 'living word of Christ' was spoken in a rare Galilean 1st century Palestinian Aramaic dialect no longer spoken today and we do not have his words as they were originally spoken in writing to examine - only re-worded and mis-translated Greek texts from about 100 years after the event (give or take) since it is clear that the gospel LOGIA ('oracles') tradition was ORAL for decades before the disciples began to die off and the message was set down in writing and later worked into books - and this was done in foreign gentile language (i.e. late 1st century Koine Greek) not in the original 'tongue' what scholars call the 'ippsissima verba' (the very words themselves).

So in a nutshell, to focus ONLY on the 'liviing words' of any teacher of the past it is first necessary to KNOW what THOSE VERY WORDS were - and then you can translate them into your own language to focus upon them.

The issue is this: 99% of all the 'words and ideas' placed into the mouth of the Greek speaking Iesous in the canonical Greek gospels (i.e. those 'according to Matthew' whoever he was, and 'according to Mark', whoever he was, and 'according to Luke' whoever he was, and 'acccording to John the Elder' whoever he was) are NOT the words themselves as they were originally spoken - so we do NOT know what his words were in the first place in order to translate them into say, Modern American English for example, with any accuracy.

All we have is scholarly guess work - and this is also true for the messy and textually corrupt Greek hand copied texts and fragments of the canonical council approved Greek Gospel material (all of which circulated first without titles or claims of specific authorship - i.e. they were first published for 80-100 years or so anonymously) that have managed to come down to us - of the 5446 Greek MSS hand copies, no two are actually alike word for word - which should tell you that we don't know as much as your priest or rabbi or minister/brother thinks we do about 'his words' which were placed into the 'good' Rebbe's mouth in Greek !!

This is even more problematic when we examine the version in the 2nd canonical Greek gospel ('according to Mark', whoever he was) and compare it with say the same LOGION (or 'saying' / 'oracle') in another gospel, e.g. the 3rd canonical Greek gospel 'according to Luke' and the 1st canonical Greek council approved gospel 'according to Matthew' whoever they were - and notice that they both are quite different from each other in wording and meaning e.g.

The saying about disciples being permitted to take staffs (Mark 6:8-9).
The same saying about disciples not being permitted to take a staff (Luke 9:3; Matt. 10:9-10)

There are perhaps 100 of these sayings variants which often are at odds with each other in the 4 canonical Greek council approved 'gospels' (to say nothing of the words placed into the Greek speaking Mouth of the good Rebbe in gospels such as Thomas or Phillipos which DID NOT get into the 'Bible !) so the literalist believer (if he looks closely at the text as a source for his life-style) is sure to find himself in a big muddle - especially if he want to take the 'bible' literally - i.e. if he looks too closely at what is actually printed on the page in front of him.

Another issue is that 99% of the words placed into the Greek Speaking Mouth of 'ho Iesous' (Aram. 'R. Yehoshua bar Yosef' the Galilean Nazir or branch of David) were EXTRACTED from the Aramaic Targums of the Hebrew scriptures (i.e. virtually most of the old testament) so there is NO escape from the contents of the writings of the Jews since the 'Rebbe' spoke only to Jews & god-fearers who attended Synagogues in Palestine & instructed his disciples to do the same

('Be sure not to go in the way of the goyim, neither eat of their food or enter into any of their houses nor speak to them...but go ONLY to houses of the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisro'el - to them preach the Kingdom of Heaven t& to them alone !')

So his message was actually racist-zionist in content from the beginnning (quoting as he does much of the racist-zionist Dead Sea Scroll material from caves 1-11) and has very very little to do with gentiles living in the 21st century West !!

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by Sigismundus

I think that you are painting a wide brush stroke with the title of this thread and are politely beating around the burning bush, so to speak.
Well you seem to be well educated in religion, far more than I am
All around the carpenter’s bench
It would seem as though you have just about every religious angle figured out except, faith.
I have been open honest and up front with you so far
The monkey chased the weasel
You seem to pounce about on a couple of religions so far
Being somewhat of an historian, you realize there was no face book and no census bureau and if there was not too many people could fill in the forms because writing was only for those few select. Theoretically, you claim you do not know who Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John was, that is odd. Although, you cant prove they did not exist.
The monkey thought it was all in good fun
Just to speed things along here, I would like to offer you a religious question with a multiple choice answer:
Your religious studies have currently led you to:
A: Reform an ancient Sumerian cult to enjoy tax-exempt status.
B: To be an atheist with a theological chip on your shoulder, hoping that someone will knock it off and get you to have faith
C: To believe Islam is the only true religion
D: None of the above

posted on Apr, 28 2012 @ 09:29 PM
reply to post by redneck13

Hi Redneck--

You wrote:


Just to speed things along here, I would like to offer you a religious question - with a multiple choice answer:

Your religious studies have currently led you to:

A: Reform an ancient Sumerian cult to enjoy tax-exempt status.
B: To be an atheist with a theological chip on your shoulder, hoping that someone will knock it off and get you to have faith
C: To believe Islam is the only true religion
D: None of the above


I guess D would be correct - since it IS none of the above; I simply dislike to listen to persons who think they can 'follow Jesus' by 'obeying his words' and who forget that he was a rabbinic Daviddic Pretender Jew of the 1st century whose ONLY concern was to ingather the non gentile lost sheep of the Elect of the House of Yisro'el and announcing the return of the (imaginary) Kingdom of the Davids (in exile since 587 BCE and usurped by Hashmoean priestly Levites, whose family Herod /'the great' (the grandson of an Arabian-Idumenean proselyte clan chief who was forced converted to Judaeism under John Hyrcanus c. 104 BCE) married-into and promptly began killing off one by one...

Why today's modern goyim even listen to the badly translated Greek words placed into the mouth of this man in the council approved canonical Greek gospels is beyond comprehension since it is clear from the traditions ascribed to him that he loathed, despised and abominated gentiles (i.e. non jews) with a passion, calling them 'dogs' among other things (see the 1st canonical Greek gospel 'according to Matthew', whoever he was - chapter 15:20ff).

But the theme of this thread is being taken off its subject here a bit :

I simply want to know if one can be a Creationist (i.e. and believe that yes, this material electro-magnetic universe does have a mind behind it) and still not always constantly all the time drag in the vicious sexist xenophobic racist god of the Jews and the 2 silly contradictory creation myths attached to his priests - with their talking Snakes and their solid dome firmaments for skies and their childish order of creation .e.g. Vegetation (herbs and trees bearing fruit) having been purportedly created BEFORE (!!!!) before the Sun, moon and stars (all pre-scientific garbage myth-making) !!

Why can't we hear of non-zionist views of Creation e.g. in the US? All discussions around this whole topic (especially in the so-called Bible Belt) will within a few seconds turn to the 'Jewish bible' and its 2 contradictory myths of creation - as if no other peoples on the earth ever lived and ever thought about creation - and by doing so, these narrow minded so and soes totally ignore the 7,000 other myths of Creation from other far more sophisticated and older civilisations in the world...

It seems to me the only reason why this is so is because in the west, the zionist agenda seems to have a very well-oiled propaganda machine - which has been running rampant for the past 2,000 years and now has infected millions of otherwise open minded persons.

It's more than a dumming down process - it's clearly something that the politicians and the religious leaders and the media and the schools etc. etc. especially in the US have decided simply NOT to talk about OTHER creation myths than the ones found in genesis - and they're clearly not all they were once cracked up to be, when read closely (i.e. word for word) and compared with each other (e.g. CREATION MYTH # 1 in Gen 1:1 - 2:4a compared with CREATION MYTH # 2 in Gen 2:4b - 4:26) - most American 'Christians' (and Jews for that matter) are not even aware that there ARE two contradictory creation myths in Genesis which cannot be reconciled with each other when read side by side and closely compared word for word - especially in the mangled paleoHebrew unpointed mss copies, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which put the kabosh on the masoretic text being anything special or accurate or ancient for that matter !!

But to answer your question, my religious studies HAVE allowed me to read the texts of ancient Judaisms and early Christianities very very very closely - and have opened my eyes to so many illusions and delusions held by modern day believers who cannot (or will not) take the time to learn these ancient languages for themselves in order to study the actual texts in their original expressions.

Once one does take the time to do this (e.g. the way Dr Bart Ehrman did, starting out as a radical fundamentalist Baptist Bible believing Christian, but after taking years of hard study gradually learning Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic, learned to read the texts closely (and compare the MSS word for word for their differences) - to his Shock and Awe found out that the texts were No Where Near to what they were advertised to be ...) he will see them for what they are : pious forgeries.

edit on 28-4-2012 by Sigismundus because: stuttering keeeeyboaardddssss

new topics
top topics
<<   2 >>

log in