• In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

This forum is devoted to conversations about your favorite NON-FICTION authors, books, and genres.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

Steven D wrote:Hi All! This is the author here. I appreciate that you're discussing, and hopefully enjoying, the book. I've read through the comments thus far here and am glad that many of you are getting the gist of my thesis---which is basically a textual demonstration proving that the beliefs (archaic and culturally shaped) do not square with modern claims of believing in the text, its worldview, and beliefs.

I thought this quote rather pertinent. "The blind stubbornness that creationists show in trying to defend Genesis as consistent with science also prevents them from arriving at a richer understanding of the culture they supposedly worship as sacred."

Although the book has its sharp polemical attack on Creationist claims about Genesis 1 (stating they are hypocritical and disingenuous) there is nonetheless a sympathetic strain to the book as well. Since my expertise is in biblical studies, I feel that one of the reasons that Creationists/Fundamentalists claim belief is due to lack of education or plain knowledge about the text, and certainly about the culture and authorial beliefs and perspectives that shaped this narrative. The other main reason is the prejudiced interpretive assumptions handed down to the reader by what is implied in the label "the Holy Book," which it must be stated was created centuries later and by a readership that also were more or less ignorant about this collection of ancient texts, who wrote, them, to whom, in relation to what other texts, using what literary techniques, to respond to what historical circumstance, etc. Although modern biblical scholarship doesn't have the answers to all these questions, we know a great deal about this collection of texts, their authors, every-changing geopolitical and religious worldviews, etc.

I too have often lamented the irony of the situation: those who cherish and voice a belief in these texts the most are ironically those that are doing these texts the most harm by, in gross, neglecting their authors' beliefs and messages (and often contradictory) while unknowingly replacing them with their own modern beliefs or traditionally handed-down belief about this corpus of ancient literature.

As a way to perhaps spur more conversation, because ideally we as a culture (theists and atheists) need an open and honest conversation, objectively, about these ancient texts, what they are and are not, I might refer you to early drafts of sections of the book on my blog.

I specifically choose the subtitle for a reason: that most, or all, Creationists are not being honest to the text. What I specifically mean by Being honest to the text, its author, and his beliefs (which is part of the book's intro) can be found here http://contradictionsinthebible.com/bei ... r-beliefs/

Or here too http://contradictionsinthebible.com/def ... s-1-right/

cheers
Thanks for Joining us, Steven. It's always nice to have an author join in discussion. I'm really enjoying your perspective on the issue which I find unique and refreshing. Like you, I've read just about everything from Joseph Campbell. It's all there on my book shelf and I've gone through the audio and visual lectures. The main thrust is looking at mythology and religion from an appreciative perspective, while at the same time critically examining the content. You've pulled off something similar, but from a much more specialized academic perspective. I enjoy your forensic style investigation into the world of the original writer(s). It's always refreshing to discover something new about the texts, something I haven't already read before or realized on my own. Your treatment of the contradiction of days before the sun has done just that. It makes so much more sense now...
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6497
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2717 times
Been thanked: 2659 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

DWill wrote:I've long suspected that modern concerns with consistency and non-contradiction were alien to the culture that produced these ancient scriptures.
Thanks Tat for sharing Steven's very interesting analysis of Genesis, and a big thank you to Steven for joining booktalk, of which more below.

Re DWill’s questions about consistency, I think it is important not to understate the sophistication of the writers of Genesis. Non-contradiction was introduced as a key idea in Greek thought with the logical argument of Plato and Aristotle that a thing is what it is and not something else. This principle of identity does also appear implicitly in monotheism, seen as a logical evolution from the earlier idea of many gods towards a vision of universal consistency, with the whole universe perceived as manifesting a coordinated divine order.
Steven D wrote:Hi All! This is the author here. I appreciate that you're discussing, and hopefully enjoying, the book. I've read through the comments thus far here and am glad that many of you are getting the gist of my thesis---which is basically a textual demonstration proving that the beliefs (archaic and culturally shaped) do not square with modern claims of believing in the text, its worldview, and beliefs.
Hello Steven, welcome to booktalk. I have followed Tat’s interest in creationism over the years, including in discussion at the Free Thought Nation forum, exploring the astral allegory within the mythology. My conclusion is that the real origins of the texts are radically different from how they are traditionally perceived, and that reverse engineering the original intent of the authors involves a radical deconstruction. For example, if we refuse to take for granted the traditional religious assumption that Jesus Christ was a real person and not a fictional character, then the whole relation between orthodoxy and the mystery traditions becomes open to new interpretations.
Steven D wrote: I thought this quote rather pertinent. "The blind stubbornness that creationists show in trying to defend Genesis as consistent with science also prevents them from arriving at a richer understanding of the culture they supposedly worship as sacred."
My thinking on this point is that Paul’s argument that Jesus came to repair Adam’s sin is decisive for the fundamentalist reading. The core Christian idea that Jesus Saves is framed within the YEC theory of creation, fall and redemption.

As well, YEC is all about defending the traditional authority of patriarchal monotheist hierarchies, with a framework of meaning designed to reinforce the stability and security of social systems and values. It is an effective circular logic whose only deficiency is that it is constructed on fantasy not fact, and therefore lacks any integrity against the charge of hypocrisy.

The effectiveness of fundamentalism emerges in themes such as strict values, clear social and family roles, and the comfort of belonging to a trusted close knit community. As we see especially with Mormons, who are often rich but crazy, the gain of perceived coherence can be an acceptable price to pay for the actual loss of integrity involved in fundamentalist faith.
Steven D wrote: Although the book has its sharp polemical attack on Creationist claims about Genesis 1 (stating they are hypocritical and disingenuous) there is nonetheless a sympathetic strain to the book as well.
This need for a sympathetic strain is often not understood by atheists, who seem to argue that if only everyone could get a doctorate in biology there would be no need for religion.

Popular religion provides simplified stories and rituals that give meaning and direction to people who need a pastor to trust. That is an inevitable social function, so the evolutionary task for religion today is to work out how the good values within traditional communities can be retained in ways that can also respect the integrity of the foundation texts. I think a big part of that is recognising that what Calvin called the Total Depravity of the fall from grace included the corruption of the church in distorting the deposit of faith.

Expanding on the suggestion that the real culture of Genesis was radically different from the fundamentalist imagination, I interpret the seven days of creation as a gnostic allegory for the old Christian mainline theory that time is seven thousand years long. That rests on the hypothesis that orthodoxy evolved from gnosticism, not the reverse.

If we take the idea from Psalm 90 and 2 Peter that a thousand years are as a day for God, then the seven days of creation map onto the seven thousand years of creation from fall to redemption.

Considering that the Jewish authors of Genesis were deeply steeped in interculturality, with links to Babylon, Egypt, Greece and even India, it is important to consider the potential for secret allegory, whose presence can only be established by a reverse engineering interpretation. Given the close links between astronomy and religion in Babylon and Egypt, it is entirely plausible that the Genesis creation account could reflect some accurate ancient knowledge of visual astronomy.

I am thinking specifically of precession of the equinox as a lost governing idea for ancient myth, with the observation that the spring point crossed the Milky Way around 4000 BC, and that the zodiac ages provide an accurate mythological structure for the observed order of the cosmos, a structure well reflected in a range of Biblical texts.

What this mode of reading means for me is that it is entirely possible for Christianity today to evolve to become compatible with science, respecting traditional values while shaking the foundations to see how the authors could have had a coherent and rational cosmology, which is presented in simplified secret allegory concealed within the texts that have survived the mill of dogma.
Steven D wrote:…What I specifically mean by Being honest to the text, its author, and his beliefs (which is part of the book's intro) can be found here http://contradictionsinthebible.com/bei ... r-beliefs/

Or here too http://contradictionsinthebible.com/def ... s-1-right/

cheers
Yes, this is all excellent material. I too would like to see myself as defending the Biblical texts, in ways that seem to jar against dominant secular assumptions.

Firstly, there is the sense of respecting the religious idea that it is possible to achieve a connection between our changing temporal situations and an enduring eternal truth. That means recognising that the essential binding role of religion is as socially important for our communities and world as the binding role of ligaments is physically important for our bones and bodies.

Secondly, I think it is possible to establish a scientific Christology that sees Jesus Christ purely in this imaginary mythical connection function, respecting the Biblical visions as cosmic allegory.

Thirdly, such a view on the reform of religion can respect some of the social values that are associated with traditional faith, while also looking at how faith can evolve to become compatible with reason. That means illustrating how creation and evolution function as memetic bundling agents for broad social clusters of practice and attitude and values. Before approaching creationism as a simple error of fact, this clustering function has to be disentangled.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

I think I'm going to give a few copies of the book to some of my family members. This will make a good and choice gift for several...
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Tue Feb 14, 2017 9:41 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Steven D
Official Newbie!
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:29 pm
7
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

Hey everyone, thanks for your comments. I'm a little busy right now but I will get back to responding to them. I realize that when we start talking about one textual or thematic element it often leads to thousands of others. The study of this ancient corpus of literature is definitely a life-long project.

For those you are reading through the book, I would encourage to leave a review on Amazon. . . certainly be as honest as you'd like. --- cheers
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

Steven D wrote:Hi All! This is the author here.
Since my expertise is in biblical studies, I feel that one of the reasons that Creationists/Fundamentalists claim belief is due to lack of education or plain knowledge about the text, and certainly about the culture and authorial beliefs and perspectives that shaped this narrative.Although modern biblical scholarship doesn't have the answers to all these questions, we know a great deal about this collection of texts, their authors, every-changing geopolitical and religious worldviews, etc.
If you see this, I hope you will comment on the interpretation I saw recently, which is that the Hebrew re-writing of Mesopotamian creation myths aimed at affirming creativity and "it was good" by contrast with the violent striving between gods which was typical for the myths they encountered among the imperialistic cultures around them.

This interpretation is linked to mimetic theory and René Girard's anthropology of violence.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

I know the non-fiction book discussion for March, April and May has been decided. But would anyone be interested in putting Steven's book up for non-fiction discussion vote thereafter? In any case we can continue discussing informally on this thread...
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Sun Feb 19, 2017 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

Steven D wrote:Although the book has its sharp polemical attack on Creationist claims about Genesis 1 (stating they are hypocritical and disingenuous) there is nonetheless a sympathetic strain to the book as well. Since my expertise is in biblical studies, I feel that one of the reasons that Creationists/Fundamentalists claim belief is due to lack of education or plain knowledge about the text, and certainly about the culture and authorial beliefs and perspectives that shaped this narrative. The other main reason is the prejudiced interpretive assumptions handed down to the reader by what is implied in the label "the Holy Book," which it must be stated was created centuries later and by a readership that also were more or less ignorant about this collection of ancient texts, who wrote, them, to whom, in relation to what other texts, using what literary techniques, to respond to what historical circumstance, etc. Although modern biblical scholarship doesn't have the answers to all these questions, we know a great deal about this collection of texts, their authors, every-changing geopolitical and religious worldviews, etc.
Hi Steven. It is certainly not the case that Prof Edward J Young for example was suffering from "a lack of education or plain knowledge about the text". Indeed I would question whether you have even a fraction of his knowledge of Semitic languages and philology or knowledge of the culture. Furthermore you appear to be advocating the moth eaten and discredited Documentary source Hypothesis, on authorship.
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article
tat tvam asi wrote:Having said that, it would initially appear that the Israelite scribe who penned Genesis 1, or the larger cultural perspective from which he drew, did not see or understand the sun as the source of light, that is the source of day or daylight. Indeed, as expressed in Genesis 1:15, the sun was understood as a light emitting source, as was, erroneously, the moon. But it appears that it was not seen as the source of day or daylight. The sun and the moon were created “to distinguish between the day and the night” not as the sources for day and night. This is a radical departure from modern scientific truth and what we know today.
It would be tedious and onerous to address all these alleged contradictions which have been answered many times. Here Steven says that the writer of Genesis 1 did not see or understand the sun as the source of light. He admits that in Genesis 1:15 the sun was understood as a light emitting source.

This is an absurd and self contradictory argument. It is sufficient to quote the text itself. " and let them be for lights in the firmament to give light on the earth":and it was so. Then God made two great lights;the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night."
It is really unwarranted to suggest that ancient middle Eastern peoples had no idea that the sun was the source of daylight. Of course they did why wouldn't they?
He then claims it's "erroneous" that the moon is said to emit light. This is sheer nitpicking as if it was written as a scientific treatise that should have said reflected light of the sun. By this yardstick it is "erroneous" for us to say that the sun rises every morning.
Here's a response to some of these claimed contradictions. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apconte ... ticle=1131

I noticed three favourable reviews of the book by scholars on the link. The first from a scholar John J Collins who I came across previously in my posts and studies on prophecy and the book of Daniel.
A very erudite scholar on esoteric ancient religions but a hopeless exegete and interpreter who was forced to badly interpret Daniel's prophecies identifying the four empires in order to uphold his Maccabean theory.
The second I don't know and the third is Hector Avalos an embittered anti Christian polemicist.
Of course we know how our solar system really formed. Asteroid collisions dun it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdl&t=169s Bad link here. If interested type in on youtube, Our created solar system what you aren't being told.
And if you want good biblical exegesis you wont get it from Tat with his solar mythology interpretation and Christ myth theory.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

Having said that, it would initially appear that the Israelite scribe who penned Genesis 1, or the larger cultural perspective from which he drew, did not see or understand the sun as the source of light, that is the source of day or daylight.
Flan5, you've started off by avoiding the point of the article. Steven (who is an academic) goes into depth about how this idea of the sun separate from day itself is a product of the times. Have you read the article, or are you jumping the gun with an intellectually dishonest critique of what Steven is saying?

I'll post a link to the article again, which was posted where you pulled the quote from in case you'd like to try this again after reading the article you're trying to critique: http://contradictionsinthebible.com/gen ... -of-light/

Flan 5 wrote:It would be tedious and onerous to address all these alleged contradictions which have been answered many times. Here Steven says that the writer of Genesis 1 did not see or understand the sun as the source of light. He admits that in Genesis 1:15 the sun was understood as a light emitting source.
Look at what Steven was quoted saying and what you're response to his quote was. See the problem yet?
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

tat tvam asi,

In addition to the official book selections, BookTalk has two "additional" areas where smaller groups can start their own discussions. Currently these discussions are limited to one thread, don't know if that can be changed. There is one section for fiction and one for non-fiction. If you let us know which category this book belongs in :shock: we'll move this thread to the appropriate area (and leave a pointer here to find it). Since you have the author involved to some extent, this looks like a great candidate.

The moderators need to enforce a little discipline in the "additional" discussion areas. Here's the one for non-fiction, which has several books that I'd call fiction.
http://www.booktalk.org/additional-non- ... -f259.html

Here's the area for fiction, which contains a non-fiction discussion on fossils.
http://www.booktalk.org/additional-fict ... -f262.html

Oh well, as long as the discussion happens perhaps we shouldn't be too picky...
_______________________________________________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25
User avatar
tat tvam asi
Reading Addict
Posts: 1367
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:57 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 571 times
Been thanked: 549 times

Re: Genesis 1 and the Creationism Debate

Unread post

This is a book authored by an academic scholar about the Bible. So it's a non-fiction academic book discussing works of fiction, namely Genesis, Exodus, etc.
Post Reply

Return to “Non-Fiction General Discussion”