It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Genesis: A Comparative Analysis

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SangriaRed
 


You wrote:

["Not sure if this helps or hurts or whatever but, from my research, Genesis had more than one author.
If you look it up, you'll find that some of what was found shows an author who would use the Divine name and there is another who didn't.
I believe that these 2 different 'versions' are attributable to that."]


If it was only that easy to reduce the situation to TWO interested parties. What about the 'adversaries' (the talking snake, Satan, Lucifer and local minor 'gods'), which starting from genesis and continuing through the bible conveniently are lumped into one group of 'bad guys' (sometimes just THE one bad guy).

Or from an interpretation perspective the maverick-Jesus, who introduced still another 'god' (just as Buddha did in another context of 'reality' seeking).

It's very similar to the cold war 'straw man' propaganda-missiles thrown between McCarthy'ism and stalinist Sovjet: "Me good, 'they' bad".

The chestbeating starts already in gen. 1:1 if the related bible-links are included in a analysis of the opening parts of genesis (an approach I'm not happy about, but which needs to be mentioned).

In the broader context of comparative religion, the 'many-party' model seems reasonable.


edit on 23-8-2011 by bogomil because: addition




posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by SangriaRed
 


You wrote:

["Not sure if this helps or hurts or whatever but, from my research, Genesis had more than one author.
If you look it up, you'll find that some of what was found shows an author who would use the Divine name and there is another who didn't.
I believe that these 2 different 'versions' are attributable to that."]


If it was only that easy to reduce the situation to TWO interested parties. What about the 'adversaries' (the talking snake, Satan, Lucifer and local minor 'gods'), which starting from genesis and continuing through the bible conveniently are lumped into one group of 'bad guys' (sometimes just THE one bad guy).

Or from an interpretation perspective the maverick-Jesus, who introduced still another 'god' (just as Buddha did in another context of 'reality' seeking).

It's very similar to the cold war 'straw man' propaganda-missiles thrown between McCarthy'ism and stalinist Sovjet: "Me good, 'they' bad".

The chestbeating starts already in gen. 1:1 if the related bible-links are included in a analysis of the opening parts of genesis (an approach I'm not happy about, but which needs to be mentioned).

In the broader context of comparative religion, the 'many-party' model seems reasonable.


edit on 23-8-2011 by bogomil because: addition


Well, there's that too....
And wow, I hadn't even gotten to the idea of a comparison with the cold war propaganda. That's really an interesting take on things.
Need to mull that over a bit.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SangriaRed
 


You wrote:

["Well, there's that too....
And wow, I hadn't even gotten to the idea of a comparison with the cold war propaganda. That's really an interesting take on things. Need to mull that over a bit."]

Which will make you a decent communication-partner (even if we eventually may disagree on something).

Both of us being 'mullers' will at least reduce the possibility of adapting/enforcing/inventing 'facts' to fit a predetermined answer instead of concluding an answer from observed facts.

PS. Please notice, the above doesn't mean I ultimately limit e.g. a genesis analysis to an empirical, reductionist materialism. There ARE some legitimate methodologies outside hard-science 'scientism'.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 






Which will make you a decent communication-partner (even if we eventually may disagree on something).


Why, thank you very much for that.





Both of us being 'mullers' will at least reduce the possibility of adapting/enforcing/inventing 'facts' to fit a predetermined answer instead of concluding an answer from observed facts.


I try. I'm sure I have my moments that I slip up.
I try to surround myself with people who are "mullers" who keep me on my toes.




PS. Please notice, the above doesn't mean I ultimately limit e.g. a genesis analysis to an empirical, reductionist materialism. There ARE some legitimate methodologies outside hard-science 'scientism'.


Understood. I noticed your post on page 1 that I still need to go back and read again. Saw it a bit ago, before coffee and breakfast. I need to get back and read the other replies some more.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Thanks for the link and yup my pov. It still kinda is but slightly different now.
But that is only because I am beginging to truely understand the creator.
I relize it is totaly taboo to think that way. But truth is truth either way.

Just like this sunday I scared a JW off with my new found truths.
She said I am an antichrist and that I would never be apart of the 144,000.
It kinda broke my heart to hear them say that though. I thought they may have
been above such twisted things.

What made her say this was, I believe Jesus did come from the true creator the light.
But I no longer believe the GOD we are programmed to worship through years of terriany.
If anyone would stop and really take the time to study Jesus then compare him to the GOD,
that we are forced to believe in. They really dont add up at all. [I may be way off base here, but
what led me to this is really profound and you were even one of the view that helped, so thxs]

LOTZA LUV & sorry to eat up so much space on you're thread.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Mividau
 


I think Jw's put far too much stock in Revelations... How can one live their life if they're always worried about "end times".... As for the 144k people, ya i've been tossed that line a few times.

All i could do was


Btw theres plentillly of room on my thread, post away..


edit on 23-8-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["Btw theres plentillly of room on my thread, post away.."]

Which, considering the importance of the topic, would be of relevance to many parallel threads if contributors would emerge.

A little harmless street-theater inclusions perhaps? I could brake my general principles and for the duration (a few posts) make some OUTRAGEOUS, 'absolute', positivistic, subjective, 'gnostic', atheist, reductionist materialism, singleminded and unfair claims (with your consent).



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["Btw theres plentillly of room on my thread, post away.."]

Which, considering the importance of the topic, would be of relevance to many parallel threads if contributors would emerge.

A little harmless street-theater inclusions perhaps? I could brake my general principles and for the duration (a few posts) make some OUTRAGEOUS, 'absolute', positivistic, subjective, 'gnostic', atheist, reductionist materialism, singleminded and unfair claims (with your consent).


By all means... you have my permission to "raise hell" :lol

This is a touchy subject you see, pointing out "flaws" in biblical texts which are supposed to be "Infallible" brings out the worst in some people. Thats usually why some of my threads arn't so popular.

Not that it matters either way

So...

Let the "Outrageousness" commence!



Btw i made this thead for you.....only because you woudn't

edit on 23-8-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I’ll play – lets see


genesis
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


How in the name of the FSM do you make something that’s without form, and void?



1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


Day? – what an earth day - 24 hours? – but the earth's still formless and void (whatever the heck that means)


1:14 And 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:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


Wtf god has only just got around to making the sun 3 days latter, what do christians think its light out side and the sun just happens to be up at the same time


and for some reason he thinks the other stars are lesser lights (lesser to the sun i guess it means when many of the stars are known to be much larger/hotter/brighter)

wait "firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth" - god thinks the rest of the universe is there just to shine light on the earth



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote:

["Btw i made this thead for you.....only because you woudn't"]

I'm glad. This way I don't have much 'responsibility' for defending any positivistic positions or claims, but can continue with being annoyingly cantankerous.

But as said before in a similar context, a somewhat specific christian interpretation of gen 1 and 2 is needed as a reference-point. There's no end to the various 'explanations' presented by christians and it's impossible to cover them all. Let's see if any such opponent can be smoked out.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



I'm glad. This way I don't have much 'responsibility' for defending any positivistic positions or claims, but can continue with being annoyingly cantankerous.



Bahahaha, i love that word!!

You ol' Goat!


edit on 23-8-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Christian missionaries from various denominations.

It can't possibly have escaped your attention, that gen. 1-3 are cornerstones for 'whole-bible' (OT and NT intertwined) pauline primary and secondary doctrinal and applied 'christianity'.

If gen.1-3 don't stand scrutiny, pauline christians can just as well resign and accept they have more or less wasted some time of what could be the one and only existence they ever will have.



Ofcourse.....

......UNLESS:

Said christian faith really IS a faith. Not an effort of after all sneaking in pseudo-rational or semantic 'explanations'. And in the future accept that faith is faith, and that no faith is superior to any other faith.



MY position is, that anything claiming 'absolute' truth one way or another also has to relate to a rational examination of the POSITIVISTIC (absolute) parts of the claims, which can be approached by 'reality-checking', such as is done in standard science/logic.

And while I can't give a carte-blanche on methodologies used (as I don't know the extent of what can appear), I am willing to, inside my competence (which mainly is layperson physics and epistemology), consider theism vs non-theism from as broad perspectives as possible. So this isn't a 'hard-core science only' restriction, but can include logical positions also. Or epistemological positions.

I say here and now, that the cosmogony and cosmology in gen.1 is plain non-sense, leading to the conclusion, that christian apologetics aren't better than that of pastafarians, and that christian epistemology isn't better than that of 'napkin'ism' ("it says here, that what it says here is true").



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by racasan
 


Be it far from me to 'compete' with you, I'll just use another type of step-by-step approach. Some theist do imo easily loose their way, when several options are in front of them.

Hail Eris and the great noodlemaster



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Hi bogomil
if have plans for this thread I don’t mind going back to trying my astro-theology style golden apples to see if that gets me a live one

But if super Ed come in trying to show god invented Maxwell’s equations and hydrogen sulphide by using


Deut 23:12-13 "You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be that when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement."


To prove it then I might have to post something



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by bogomil
 


Hi bogomil
if have plans for this thread I don’t mind going back to trying my astro-theology style golden apples to see if that gets me a live one

But if super Ed come in trying to show god invented Maxwell’s equations and hydrogen sulphide by using


Deut 23:12-13 "You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be that when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement."


To prove it then I might have to post something


No, please stay. I laughed so I cried on reading your comment on physics and Deut. 23:12-13.

All hail Eris (the great noodlemaster is in a bad mood and doesn't want to be hailed more today).



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I love when BOGO gets started.
Granted I need wikipedia open as I read his replies.
But all and all its good.

LOTZA LUV



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Mividau
 


Thanks.

Quote: ["Granted I need wikipedia open as I read his replies."]

How do you think I WRITE them? (I mean concerning the lingo).



edit on 23-8-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



A little harmless street-theater inclusions perhaps? I could brake my general principles and for the duration (a few posts) make some OUTRAGEOUS, 'absolute', positivistic, subjective, 'gnostic', atheist, reductionist materialism, singleminded and unfair claims (with your consent).


Ahem.... still waiting...

To move things along in this thread....

One of my favorite sites has a story about Evolution vs Genesis... You're actually jumping to the end of the story here, but it gives its own explanation on what Genesis says. Take it as you will.

Anyone with a little time to read on their hands, take a look through this... its quite an interesting story.

Chester and the Master



Chester took the leather book and flipped pages until he found Genesis. Reading he said "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Looking up Chester shrugged and said, "So?"

The Master said, "Look up in the concordance the definition of was, right after earth in the second verse. You will see what is translated as the English word was should better be translated as the phrase 'It came to pass'. Or if you want a word for word translation, instead of was it should be became. My Master told me told me the original Hebrew meant And it came to pass that the earth became a wasteland empty and chaotic."

Chester challenged. "You can't just rewrite Genesis."

The Master pointed to the second verse. "I'm showing you the full meaning of verse two in the original Hebrew, not as it was translated into English. Look up the original Hebrew for without form and void. They also mean chaotic and empty. As you can see, there is no word for word equivalence in English for the Hebrew words of hayah, tohuw and bohuw. Taking their full meaning it becomes clear that there was a lot of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. It is the events that are not mentioned between these two verses that led up to the earth becoming a chaotic wasteland. The missing information solves the mystery of Evolution vs Creation.

Forgetting the chess game, Chester said. "You have my full attention."

The Master had an excitement in his eyes, "Before God created what we now call the Universe, he had created Angels. Angels were created as helpers. They were created for a specific purpose and they, unlike mankind, cannot die nor can they improve their station. They have self will and independence and are eternal beings.
Creating Angels was Phase I of the plan of God. Phase II was the creation of the Universe. God created the Universe so that it would support physical life."

Chester rubbed his chin, "So your saying the Universe was created so life could evolve. So you have no problem with the Big Bang or Darwin's Theory of Evolution?"

The Master shook his head, "Of course not. God always starts small like a mustard seed. The Universe started very small and look how big it is now."

Chester frowned, "Then what is all the Genesis nonsense about?"

The Master held up a hand, "I'll get to it. God gave the Angels the task of searching the Infinities that contained the Universe until they found the green jewel. Or, the Earth if you please."

Chester lit up, "Now your talking. The creationist loved to use the argument that, the probability of life evolving was so unlikely statisticaly speaking, as to be impossible. I was able to show that since Quantum Reality shows that there are actually an infinite number of universes in parallel, that the statistical improbability didn't matter. In an infinite number of Universes, a Universe where life evolved was a statistical certainity!"

The Master smiled, "Of course, the Wisdom of Infinity. The Infinite nature of God makes all things possible, even a Universe that supports life just as science describes it. Reality is simply a complex pattern that is ever changing. Life is just a one of the many patterns of reality."

Chester leaned back, "Well, you get no argument from me."

The Master sipped his tea and said, "Once the Jewel we called Earth was found, God revealed his plan to his Angels. A plan so important to God, that he sent Lucifer and the third of the Angels under his leadership to come to Earth and help the lifeforms here achieve their ultimate potential. And for millions and millions of years all was according to God's plan."

"So what upset the apple cart?" Chester enquired.

The Master leaned forward, "Man."

Chester looked puzzled, "Huh?"


Evolution vs Genesis




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote (on street-theater from me):

["Ahem.... still waiting... "]

I honestly believed, that by being so straightforward as to imply, that gen. 1 and 2 are non-sense, that the pauline doctrines will come crashing down if gen. 1 and 2 are non-sense, that paulines have wasted their lives and that elitistic faith goes down with gen 1 and 2 WAS enough.

Apparantly not.

It was a nice quote you included, though I don't agree with some of the scientifically-minded bits. This master won't happen to be retired teacher of english literature; it's often one of that ilk saying things like that.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon
 


You wrote (on street-theater from me):

["Ahem.... still waiting... "]

I honestly believed, that by being so straightforward as to imply, that gen. 1 and 2 are non-sense, that the pauline doctrines will come crashing down if gen. 1 and 2 are non-sense, that paulines have wasted their lives and that elitistic faith goes down with gen 1 and 2 WAS enough.

Apparantly not.

It was a nice quote you included, though I don't agree with some of the scientifically-minded bits. This master won't happen to be retired teacher of english literature; it's often one of that ilk saying things like that.


Things like what?

What don't you agree with?




new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join