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

Ok, that didn’t pop the weasel

What creation theory do you believe in or are more likely to believe in.
Is it just the oldest text available or some other reason?
Since you know there is no way to prove the theory, your answer would be considered faith.

reply to post by Sigismundus


Sooo simple you're going to miss it, but here goes. The Earth was already here when God said " Let there be light " because if you read genesis, you will see that the Earth was without form and void, translation for you, had no life on it and was empty (of any living thing, a desolate place ) Darkness (thick clouds) covered the earth, and the earth was covered in water (the deep).

In the second part it is more about Mankind specifically and God, the Garden of God and the fall of man. God already told of how he replenished the earth in Genesis 1. BTW you will see a similarity after Noah exits the Ark, where after all the clouds are cleared, and, dry land appears, God says, "Be fruitful and replenish the Earth." Notice that. The Earth was once again covered in water and under darkness. Only this time He saved Noah, his family, and the animals with him.

I hope that helps, though I doubt it, you can't believe what you can't see, and the things of God are but foolishness to the people of this world.

reply to post by Fromabove


Hi From Above

You Wrote:

QUOTE

" Sooo simple you're going to miss it, but here goes.

The Earth was already here when God said

"Let there be light "

because if you read genesis, you will see that the Earth was without form and void, translation for you, had no life on it and was empty (of any living thing, a desolate place ) Darkness (thick clouds) covered the earth, and the earth was covered in water (the deep).

In the second part it is more about Mankind specifically and God, the Garden of God and the fall of man. God already told of how he replenished the earth in Genesis 1.

UNQUOTE

Not sure what you mean, 'translation for you' - the paleoHebrew is clearly some kind of magick-spell (Heb. 'tohu wa bohu') meaning something like 'shapeless and zero' i.e. gooey like an amoeba.

The opening lines are expressed in the imperfect tense in the unpointed (un-vowelled) paleoHebrew versions e.g.

'When Elohim set about creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was shapeless and formless, and darkness permeated the faces of the Tehom (watery deep? cf: Babylonian TIAMAT, 'the monstress of Chaos') , and the Ruach Elohim ('the wind of the gods') brooded (i.e. circled e.g. over the nest like a dove) upon the faces of the waters of Creation...then Elohim said, Let light be; then light came into being..."

The 1st creation myth (gen 1: 1 to 2:4a) is chock-full of Babylonian loan-words (the priests of YHWH & Baal and Asherah etal. had been exiled into Babylon in 587 BCE where they met their cousins from the north exiled into Assyria in 722 BCE - and thus had plenty of time on their hands to re-work the creation myths of the Babylonians and the Assyrian priests !)

Don't forget however that the 2nd creation myth (the one with Adam and Chavvah and the Rib and the Snake and the Trees) found in Gen 2:4b to 4:26 is written in a DIFFERENT PaleoHebrew style (different Weltanschauung, vocabulary, different theology, different word order, different syntax, different sentence length, different poetical metres etc.) from the 1st creation Myth (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) - so don't even try to mix them up - they were written by two different groups with two different world view and agendas.

If you'll notice by comparing the two myths side by side, the 1st one has a watery chaos followed by a division of light from darkness then the waters above and the waters below and the dry land separated, then vegetation and trees bearing fruit etc. then the two great lights e.g. the sun the moon and then the stars were created (!!!!!) then the watery beasts then birds etc. then land beasts then reptiles that creep on the grond etc. and finally ADAM who is BOTH MALE AND FEMALE ('and he called THEIR name ADAM in the Day in which they were created' - the same writer re-appears in Gen 5:1-2) i.e. created TOGETHER - all neatly divided into 6 days, then ELOHIM takes a breather and innaugurates the Shabbat (a play on words meaning the number '7' and also meaning 'rest' in paleoHebrew) - then wam ! bam ! the 2nd creation myth starts in Gen 2:4b where there is a pre-existing earth that has some kind of fountain watering the ground, requiring a gardener, so YHWH-ELOHIM (a different god than in the 1st Creation myth) forms (YATZAR i.e. shape from mud, a diferent word from BARA to create from nothing as in the 1st myth) Adam from the mud and 'breathes into his nostrils the breath of life and Adam becomes a living NEPHESH ('breather') ; then YHWH ELOHIM begins to 'form' animals from the mud and begins to bring them one by one to the Adam for a sex-mate, but none are suitable, although Adam 'names them'; finally YHWH-ELOHIM puts Adam into a coma and removes a rib (it is a fallacy that women and men have a different number of ribs, but there you are) and 'forms' from his 'side' a woman (the English word derives from WOMB+ MAN i.e. a man with a womb) to be his sex mate partner - but refuses to breathe into her nostrils the breath of life - hence according to the Rebbes, females have no 'souls' and are thus more prone to demon possession !

Either way, the 1st creation myth of the Jews has Male and Female created on the 6th day (i.e. last) and made together and both called ADAM; whereas the 2nd Creation Myth has Adam first then animals then Havvah (the name means 'gossiper' or 'chatterer'; whereas the original Heb. was HAYYAH i.e. life-giver - the next phrase states proudly 'so named because she was the Mother of all Living') - Yod and Vav are similar in paleoHebrew horned letters...

So you can see the order of Creation is different in the 2 Creation Myths (i.e. #1 Gen 1:1 to 2:4a when compared with #2 Gen 2:4b - 4:26) in Genesis.

But the point of this thread is why do people jump on the Genesis Jewish Creation Myth Bandwagon when discussing the possibility of Intelligent Design - it doesn't have to be so !!













UNQUOTE

law2.umkc.edu...

Text
Genesis in the Scopes Trial

Two-thousand-four-hundred-and-eighty-five years (plus or minus a year or two) after the writing of Genesis, Judge John T. Raulston read to grand jurors and the crowd assembled in the Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee the first thirty-one verses of Chapter One of Genesis. The judge explained that he found it “proper” to “call attention” to the Biblical story of creation because the defendant in the case he had just called, State vs. John Thomas Scopes, stood accused of violating a new Tennessee statute, called the Butler Act, that made it a crime “to teach any theory that denies the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible,and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animals."
The Biblical creation story that Judge Raulston read as the historic trial opened came from Chapter 1 of Genesis, as it appeared in the King James translation. The judge does not read the strikingly different creation story found at Genesis 2:4b to 2.25, the “Adam and Eve story.” Those inclined toward Biblical literalism are forced to accept only one of the two stories as real history, and must treat the other account as partially fiction—although fiction with a true message. Given the more fanciful nature of the Adam and Eve story, with its creation from rib bone and its walking, talking snakes, the six-day creation story of Genesis 1 has been the obvious candidate for literalists to rally around.

Two-thousand-four-hundred-and-eighty-five years (plus or minus a year or two) after the writing of Genesis, Judge John T. Raulston read to grand jurors and the crowd assembled in the Rhea County Courthouse in Dayton, Tennessee the first thirty-one verses of Chapter One of Genesis. The judge explained that he found it “proper” to “call attention” to the Biblical story of creation because the defendant in the case he had just called, State vs. John Thomas Scopes, stood accused of violating a new Tennessee statute, called the Butler Act, that made it a crime “to teach any theory that denies the divine creation of man as taught in the Bible,and to teach instead that man had descended from a lower order of animals."
As the trial progressed, it became clear that the contradictions between the two Genesis accounts did not escape the attention of defense attorneys for teacher John Scopes. The defense demanded that the prosecution show which of the two creation stories it is that the Butler Act forbids teachers to “deny.” Does a biology instructor risk prosecution, Arthur Garfield Hays wondered aloud, if he or she questions whether the first woman was made from the rib of a man? The impossibility of determining which account of the “divine creation of man as taught in the Bible” could not be “denied” by Tennessee teachers, contended the defense, is a fatal flaw in the law: the law is unconstitutionally vague. Clarence Darrow threw down a challenge: “Tell us the origins of man as shown in the Bible. Is there any human being who can tell us?” Answering his own question, the nation’s most famous defense attorney said it is impossible: “There are two conflicting accounts in the first two chapters.” Without a clear statement in the law as to what “the story of divine creation” actually is, Darrow contended, Scopes cannot be prosecuted. Tennessee, he drawled, must identify “the chief mogul that can tell us what the Bible means.” If the state law provided “you must teach that man was made of the dust” or that “Eve was made of Adam’s rib,” then at least the law would be clear,” he argued. The law provides no hint which creation story must not be denied. Charges against Scopes, Darrow concludes, must be dropped.
Prosecutor William Jennings Bryan, unsurprisingly, saw none of the defense’s problems with the wording of the statute. “The statute is brief and free from ambiguity,” he asserted. Judge Raulston sided with Bryan. He denied the defense’s motion to quash, on the ground of vagueness, the indictment of Scopes.

reply to post by redneck13

Hi Redneck -

Thanks for the Scopes Reference - the gist of which shows the impossibility of finding any solid historicity or scientific value within the the 2 Creation Myths of the Jews in their Bereshth ('in the beginning') which forms the opening of their 'holy' Torah.

Interestingly, focussing on the 1st Creation Myth (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) raises even more issues - like the idea of Req'iakim (bowls or domes) over a flat earth (science refutes both a flat earth and a solid hard dome over it) as well as the idea that vegetation (i.e. grasses and trees 'bearing fruit with the seeds inside them') could possibly have sprung into existence BEFORE the Sun, the Moon OR the Stars !! (See Gen 1: 5-12) = both contradictory Creation Myths in Genesis are didactic-theological creations (the first has a cultic function, for the New Year for Trees in February - notice the cultic cadences and the preistly-Hezekielite accent !) not scientific inquiries by any stretch.

What science will come up with to explain the way the universe works is stil a 'work in progress' but it certainly has nothing to do with talking snakes.

reply to post by Sigismundus


I am going to try to give you an answer for you thread title but I am not so sure that I am not a guinea pig in some grand experiment you have designed. (oink oink)
Most of us believe in the Jewish creation myths in Genesis because we are taught to do so. Why is this one right for us? It was designed to meet our needs. The premise of all creation myths is that Gods created man and beyond that, there is a bit of adlibbing involved because it just cannot be proven false or true as evident in the Scopes Trial. Most of us that follow the Genesis myth are what the rest of the world would call westerners. The current King James Version is the third printing and was completed by the Church of England in 1611. It suited the King’s and the churches needs in that it helped them keep the subjects loyal and helped to secure their power (less knowingly to the subjects at the time) by the rule of God. As Europe was seeking settlement in the four corners of the globe, they needed a way to keep the subjects loyal to the crown. It was done by binding the power of the church to the king and have the subjects rule themselves, for the most part with their conscious as their guides. As the settlers left Europe, they also took with them their religion in hand as a guide to them from the higher powers.
Therefore, you can suggest the designers of the bible could not decide which creation version was best so, they included both. It could also be considered that after some thought they were not sure if the total populace could believe Jesus to be the Christ so they needed two religions, Christen and Jewish. The planting of the seeds remain today as the rest of the world refers to us as westerners.

Can’t one be a CREATIONIST without dragging in the 2 Jewish Creation Myths in Genesis? as a westerner. Apparently not

www.latimes.... com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-tennessee-creationism-classroom-20120411,0,3437550.story?track=lat-pick

Creationism discussions are now OK in Tennessee schools

Text
By David Zucchino

April 11, 2012, 9:31 a.m.
Discussion of creationism in public school classrooms in Tennessee will now be permitted under a bill that passed the Republican-controlled state Legislature despite opposition from the state’s Republican governor.

The measure will allow classroom debates over evolution, permitting discussions of creationism alongside evolutionary teachings about the origins of life. Critics say the law, disparagingly called "The Monkey Bill," will plunge Tennessee back to the divisive days of the notorious Scopes "Monkey Trial’’ in Dayton, Tenn., in 1925.

Gov. Bill Haslam refused Tuesday to sign the bill, saying it would create confusion over schools’ science curriculum. But the bill became law anyway. Haslam said he decided not to use his veto power, because the Legislature had the votes to override a veto. The measure passed by a 3-to-1 margin.

"Good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion,’’ Haslam said, according to Reuters. "My concern is that this bill has not met this objective.’’

The governor added: "I don’t believe that it accomplishes anything that isn’t already acceptable in our schools.’’

The state’s teachers are not allowed to raise alternatives to evolution but, under the new law, would be required to permit discussion of creationism and other beliefs if they are raised in class. The law would also permit discussion of challenges to such scientific conclusions as the man-made effects of climate change.

The law’s proponents say it will encourage critical thinking among students and protect teachers who do not believe in evolution, according to the Associated Press.

Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Tennessee’s largest teachers’ association, say it will permit teaching creationism as fact.

"With all the emphasis now on science, math and technology, this seems like a real step backwards,’’ Jerry Winters, director of government relations for the Tennessee Education Association, told Reuters. "Tennessee was the focus of this debate in the 1920s and we don’t need to be turning the clock back now.’’

In the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, Tennessee high school teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating a state law against teaching evolution in state schools; he was defended by Clarence Darrow and prosecuted by William Jennings Bryan. The conviction was later overturned.

Eight members of the National Academy of Sciences from Tennessee, including a Vanderbilt University Nobel laureate, signed a letter urging the Legislature to vote against the bill, saying it would damage the state’s reputation and harm Tennessee’s effort to recruit science and technical companies.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told the Nashville Tennessean that the bill was designed to undercut teaching about evolution, despite claims that it encourages critical thinking.

"This has always been a way for teachers to interject their religious viewpoints if they contradict evolution,’’ Lynn said.

TextWhy 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?

reply to post by Sigismundus


The Hebrew scriptures belong to the Hebrews and not to people who consider them myth. The Jews own the so called Old Testament and the gentiles have only borrowed it to suite their own need. If you or the majority of people in this world disbelieve the Hebrew bible then that is your privilege and you may be right. The OT was never intended to be called science nor was ever taught by the Jews as science. It could never ever be classified as science when in fact it has always been regarded as theology.

The Greek scriptures which are known as the new testament are also regarded in the same manner as the Hebrew scriptures. They too are nothing but literature of theology. I could not understand why anyone would want either one of these two testaments to be taught in a school as science. They are not scientific literature nor have ever been known to be scientific literature.

However, there are portions of this literature which can be proven as historical and if you would agree that Biblical Archaeology is a science, then you might admit that some of the literature is proven by science. Other than that I admit that most is not provable. Basically the portion of deity is always nothing but theology and is always theology regardless of the god or deity that is worshiped.

Creationism is not limited to the Hebrew and Greek bibles. This new age movement throughout the world has now centered on a new form of creationism without the old Hebrew god. No longer do the new age people believe in this Myth of Adam & Eve nor even of Jesus. The new belief is an afterlife of cosmic proportions that most of us have never heard and it does not include the old war like gods of the Hebrews or the Greeks. Everyone gets a piece of the pie in the new world order but when all is said and done it also is nothing but theology.

In regards to biology as a science. That too needs some correction. I don't dispute that the monkey gene was split and is provable but there it should remain as the provable portion and not include theology in order to magnify it's portion of provability. The portion that this gene split was by accident is strictly theology as no one knows if it was by accident. There it hit a brick wall and should then be continued as theory. No one knows the number of years ago that this accident happened nor even if it was an accident. The Hebrews theorize that man was made in the likeness and image of God and not that man was evolved from the gene pool of a primate. So in the biological science of a split gene it is almost as much myth as the crazy old god myth.of the Hebrews.

originally posted by: Sigismundus
Can’t one be a CREATIONIST without ALWAYS dragging the TWO (Contradictory) Paleo-Hebrew Creation MYTHS (in Genesis) into the discussion EVERY SINGLE Time?

MSM and the sea (huge body) of torment (education, refinement) fire (knowledge, power) -- they work in the landscape of keywords and buzzwords and they stop functioning when you take one of these trigger words and actually understand it and start using it like one would, well, they don't understand it, for they have done tons of research into creationism and in the process Creationism™ comes out the other end. Pragmatism. Right? Same goes with Intelligent-Design™. It is a buzzword and means a whole new dreaded religion in itself. I just say. I believe in science and design.

We are able to replicate and synthesise DNA, we can write any genetic code and arrange genes and theoretically make half-human-crow-pig-squirrel-fish. We could, only ethics are holding us back. And what we have learned, it's so simple anyone could basically do it in their kitchens with a minimum of equipment. Thing is, the old stories are plausible, and likely to be true. They say Moses had a plane and was an inventor. Moses the mad professor. Making and changing lifeforms is pretty easy, but creating the whole ecological continuous explosion such as life here on this planet? I do understand religious people when they look at all the functional beauty and thinking someone made this.

For they're right of course. Someone designed us and cultivated Earth. And they are mean bastards, coming to destroy us every bloody time they pass by. They planted us you know. And now they are coming for the harvest. Take whatever technology and science we may have developed, kill the planet, save a handful of trophies, do it all over again and seed the next generation BS. New crops, new worlds, bet they have a lot of fun sporting around in their star-cruisers and their wish-based tech developed by their common victims struggling to survive and meet the ends of the gods' demands. Crops that will develop even more hi-tech shaite to enable the gods to be even more omnipresent and all-omni-all-powerful and as insidious and intimidating and powerful and utterly lethal as they come. They're swarming these days.

originally posted by: Myrtales Instinct


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.

Another:

"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?

What's his purpose, stars and flags for being an evolution is hero.
A veritable evangelist of atheism.

Asks Christians not to be rude and belittles those who don't agree with his view

Perfect logic

originally posted by: Sigismundus

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 !)

For me, Robert Morning Sky's "Terra Papers" makes more sense then anything else (apparently George Lucas thinks so too).

I was assimilated into the Christian belief from birth. But I questioned. When you question it and search for real answers, it just doesn't hold up.

Love your "work", welcome back. Wish I had studied knowledge to contribute more, but I don't. Will just enjoy continuing to read your threads.

Annee

a reply to: Annee

Thanks Annee ! Keep on reading and (questioning everything !) and chime in from time to time...your input is valid, don't forget that !