I'm having a debate, with some mand, who claims, the creation story(Genesis 1 ) is perfekt! in the bibel, and cound't be better
well i wanna disprof him:) HE HE!
So how do i do what best? I ask the biggest brains i know:)
and it is here you inter the picture:)
beside what, is here, some good sites, to disprof, the idea, of Genesis 1. tekst?
becourse, i'm a bit lost in some of the idears, becourse he claims, what universe and the sun was made before the first verse... but how, can you create day and nigt. on a allready made round planet?
i'm very confuset here. lol
and the greek word for creating sun and earth is the same word, use to make man? i hope i'm rigth here:)
In beginning, here was light.
this ligth came from caos, in nothingness.
it explowdet. and illuminated,
the illusions became real matter,
and started to form galaxies
with a lot of stars in them,
with smal elements moving around the stars.
in one of thise, planets was earth
it had a nice white faced moon, moving around it.
Life started to take form, and storie started to be made.
but the bedst, that happenet on this smal planet,
was you :)
-------------------------------------------------------
how woulde you like to make the new genesis 1 storie?
-------------------------------------------------------
Any future can be!
"She laughing"
If it was not so,
if it was fixed,
It would be a past.
HA! HA! HA!
(indianer wisdom)
how to make a new creation story?
by pallemar 5 Replies latest jw friends
-
pallemar
-
Leolaia
1) The logic of the narrative does indeed assume that the creative days are 24-hour days. They are composed of "morning" and "evening" which are defined as alternating periods of light and darkness (v. 3-4). So if the Society claims that the creative days are eons of unspecified length, then this implies that earth was in constant darkness and constant illumination for thousands of years each (and not just that but also with no regular days and nights).
2) The narrative actually does say that the sun, moon, and stars were "made" on the fourth creative day and then placed into the "firmament" of the heavens to "rule" the days and nights (which pre-exist the creation of the luminaries).
3) The word for "earth" in the chapter is the same word for "land". The account does not assume a "planet" earth that is a globe and spinning on its axis. The creation of the "earth" occurs when the water is extracted from the primeval "deep", producing "land" and "seas". The notion of the firmament and the waters above in the same chapter also assumes a Semitic cosmology that is not identical with modern scientific cosmology.
4) Genesis 1:1 does not describe a separate creation event eons (even billions of years) before v. 2. This is simply a summary statement that sums up the entirely of ch. 1, for the creation of the heavens (the same word for "heaven" is often translated "sky" in v. 8, obscuring the relation between the two) is described in v. 7-8 and the creation of the earth/land is described in v. 9-10. The grammatical construction is believed by some Hebrew scholars to be in the construct case with a possessive relation, i.e. "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth was formless and empty and darkness was over the surface of the deep"). The latest Awake! says that "Bible scholars agree" that v. 1 is a separate "action" from v. 3ff (p. 19), but this is not true.
-
pallemar
great thanks:)
is here some homepages, i can get som info from? -
gaiagirl
I found several books which present a good alternative to the Genesis account. All are based on what science has revealed about the natural world. The first is "Earth Story", by Eric Maddern, with illustrations by Leo Duff. This is a childrens book, covering events from the Big Bang up to the beginning of biological life. The second is "The Universe Story", by Brian Swimme and Thomas Berry. This is written for adult readers. "Micro-Cosmos" by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan is similar, and also very good. Finally, "The Ages of Gaia" by James Lovelock presents the same story from the perspective of Earth as a super-organism which is herself evolving over time. All of these last three include the evolution of biological life in their accounts. You can probably find them by searching on Amazon or Alibris.
-
PrimateDave
Here is a quick and dirty cut-and-paste job from a flawed, yet imo remarkable, work that you can download for free over at infidels.org called Is It God's Word by Joseph Wheless. There may be far better works out there, but this one is the most accessible to me at the moment:
THE "DAYS" AND MATTER OF CREATION
A word of comment may be made in passing on a couple of points
which have given occasion to much concern and controversy, by the
attempt to "accommodate" revelation to the everyday facts of
science. It is argued that the "days" of creation may be used
allegorically or figuratively; that, as "a day with Yahveh is as a
thousand years," these Genesis "days" may well denote the
indefinite veons assigned by science to the vast work of universal
creation. (Cath.. Encyc., Vol. IV, p. 473, art. Creation.) But that
the old Hebrew writers of these primitive myths had no such
figurative notions, and my yom (day) meant exactly the solar day of
twenty-four hours, is very clear: six times, at the close of each
day's recorded work, it is declared, "and the evening and the
morning were the first day," or the second, or third, day, etc.
The Hebrew word yom (day) is used in the Old Testament 1153
times; its plural (yammim, days) 811 times. Always the word means
simply the twenty-four-hour solar day; always -- can we believe it?
-- except in these "six days" of Genesis i, where, instead of
meaning "day," as plainly written, it is piously expounded as
meaning "countless aeons of time" so as to make Genesis look like
a work of modern science! Quaint double usage is jumbled into a
single verse: "And Elohim called the light yom [day], and the
darkness he called layil [night]. And the evening and the morning
were the first yom [day]" (Gen. i. 5)! Here the light part of the
day is the hours between dawn and dark; the darkness is only the
hours between sundown and the next dawn; but together they form the
"first yom" -- countless aeons of the first process of creation!
Verily, the theologians are funny-mentalists!
And if each of the first six "days" are not days but aeons of
time, how about the seventh day? The gods (Elohim) "rested [Heb.,
shabath, the sabbath] on the seventh day" (Gen. ii, 2). If each of
the other six days was an unreckonable won, the seventh day (aeon)
of rest must, for proper recuperation from such vast and prolonged
labors, be of more or less like ample duration; so that, as only
six thousand brief years (not even a second of an aeon) have
elapsed since all the work of creation was finished, the gods must
be resting even yet -- as might be suspected from some evidence in
their creation.
Why "evening and morning" marking the "day" instead of morning
and evening, as is more natural and of all but universal usage in
speech? Simply because the Jewish day began, and yet begins, in the
evening, at sunset, and their "day" is from one sunset to another;
so in writing these myths it was conformable with Jewish customs to
put the evening as the beginning of the day. Moreover, all the
eight works of creation were stuffed into six days, so that Yahveh
Bank of Wisdom
Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
48
IS IT GOD'S WORD?
could rest on the seventh day, the Jewish sabbath, or day of rest.
In order to accomplish this, and Yahveh thus be made to appear to
institute and sanction the sabbath, two distinct works, the
creation of the seas and the dry land and the creation of trees and
plants, are assigned to one, the third day; and two other works,
the creation of the animals, and the creation of man and woman, are
crowded into another day, the sixth -- eight distinct works in all.
This obvious conclusion it is pleasing to find confirmed by
the Catholic Encyclopedia -- which makes many admissions without
seeming to see their logically fatal effects: "The third day and
the sixth day are distinguished by a double work, while each of the
other four days has only one production assigned to it"; and it
adds, curiously for it, but acutely and correctly: "Hence the
suspicion arises that the division of God's creative acts into six
days is really a schemation employed to inculcate the importance
and the sanctity of the seventh day" (Vol. VII, p. 311)! From this
it is palpably evident that the seven days of the ordinary calendar
week were in the inspired mind of the old Jewish Chronicler who
worked up the Hebrew creation myth from the Babylonian Epic of
Creation.
All these material works of creation, the earth and the seas,
the sun, moon, and stars, were not created by the fiat or by the
architectural skill of Yahveh out of nothing, for "ex nihil nihil
fit." From before the "beginning" of creation, or its constructive
works, the material earth itself existed, but simply was "without
form and void," or, in the Hebrew words, thohu (desolation) and
bohu (waste) (Gen. i, 2). And the material waters existed, for "the
spirit [wind] of Elohim moved upon the face of the waters" (i, 2);
the waters not being collected together into seas until the third
day (i, 9, 10). It is curious how the otherwise intelligent human
mind can so struggle through centuries to "accommodate" sense and
science to "what are patently early myths and naive, childish,
primitive folklore," as Charles P. Fagnani, D.D., frankly calls
these tales of Genesis.
End quote.
I'm not sure if this was what you were looking for, or if it will help. Keep in mind that Genesis chapter one was not written by Moses, but was very likely adapted from a foreign source by an Aaronid priest around the reign of King Hezekiah. Wheless calls the writer 'E', but later scholarship has called the writer 'P', and the combiner/editor of the 'J', 'E', and 'P' stories is 'R'.(See Who Wrote the Bible.) The story was written to stress the importance of the sabbath, as the same priest wrote the words of Exodus 20:11.
Dave -
Arthur
I highly recommend a book entitled: "Secret Origins of the Bible" by Tim Callahan. There is almost an entire chapter dedicated to the creation account and the Garden of Eden. There are many anomalies in such accounts that when considered in the context of the their mythological origins; make sense. (the serpent, Eve being made from Adam's rib, etc.)
A second note is to point to all of the overwhelming archeological evidence from around the world that basically proves that humans have been on earth much longer than 6,000 years (up to 2 million years according to some estimates).
A simple exploration of the archeological section of any major library is all that is needed. However, this may be asking too much of a close-minded fundamentalist.