Neanderthals and the Bible? (page 3)

JanH

: Creation occured through evolution, and man sprang from previous manlike animals. I dont think my view means the bible is wrong because I do think a creator (and possibly angels) started and directed the process.

Depends what you mean by "wrong" doesn't it?

It is interesting that the more you know about the origins of humanity and life generally, the less seriously and literally you have to take the Genesis creation account(s).

Most people fail to recognize that the objective of this Genesis text was theological, not about natural science. The Hebrew author was in a religious debate, most probably with Babylonians, who believed something like the polytheistic Enuma Elish creation myth. The author of Genesis chapter 1 wrote an answer to such myths. Not only were polytheistic references replaced with the one supreme God, but its author insisted that what other cultures regarded as gods -- sun, moon, various animals -- were indeed created by this One Supreme God.

Remember that all creation myths were political statements. The babylonain myths placed Marduk, the Babylonian chief god, on the top of the food chain, superiour to other nations' gods. The Hebrew author made a myth that not only placed Yahweh (interestingly, he avoided that name) on the top, but made only vague references to even acknowledge the existence of secondary gods ("let us make").

- Jan

jelly

I think you have to take genesis seriously, but not literally. And the view that the genesis account took place over a long period of time is not a new one. Thomas Acquanis (sp?) is the first one I know of that purposed the idea.

Jan H I would like to know what you mean by 'depends on what you mean by wrong'. I dont believe Genesis is wrong, I think people are but not genesis. I believe genesis is mostly a metaphor, it exist to explain where we come from and how we got seperated from the creator.

Jelly

LDH

Thanks for bringing this back to the top.

You all may be interested to know there was a two-hour premier on Discovery channel the other night all about Neanderthals.

This kind of thing doesn't really interest me but because of this recent thread, I did watch part of it. You may be able to find additional information that interests you at http://www.discovery.com.

JanH

I think you have to take genesis seriously, but not literally.

What exactly do you mean, Jelly? If it is symbolic, what do you think it symbolizes? What great truth exactly is it explaining in metaphorical language, if that is what you mean?

And the view that the genesis account took place over a long period of time is not a new one. Thomas Acquanis (sp?) is the first one I know of that purposed the idea.

I think it came from Jewish thinkers quite a bit earlier, but I'm not sure.

It was common, for example in the 19th century, to argue that Genesis 1 descrived evolution in poetic terms. Thomas Huxley in particular gave that idea a hard time. There is no indication whatsoever that whoever wrote that text had any specific knowledge about the origin of life or anything else.

Jan H I would like to know what you mean by 'depends on what you mean by wrong'.

If you take it that Genesis has any meaningful information on the origin of life, then it's wrong. If you allow great timespans, etc, it's still wrong. The order of events, for example, is meaningless.

I dont believe Genesis is wrong, I think people are but not genesis. I believe genesis is mostly a metaphor, it exist to explain where we come from and how we got seperated from the creator.

But what does it tell about this?

Indeed, Genesis itself tells about a God who lied to humans, and a snake telling the truth. It tells about a human race awakening to sexual desire, and getting cursed for it: the men with hard work, the women with painful childbirths, and the snake by losing its legs.

It may be a good myth and good poetry, but you have to look elsewhere for truth.

- Jan

qwerty

UO

I hope you all are still fit and well.
I got you message on the answer phone the other day. Did you ear the VM on FT I left? We'll have to speak soon.

I understand where you are coming from on the above Neanderthals and the Bible thing. Your quest for truth is more complicated than mine. One reason why I haven't dug as deep as you is faith in a creator, that cares for us humans and I feel has things in his control.

The more we ask questions, some times can make us more confused. The point you made about.....

>I have one question that I hope that some one can answer: If there is no God, How do people speak in tongues at churches? Whether this is from a good or bad source, where does it come from if there is not a God?<

Just about sum things up for me.
Good point mate. I hope someone will try and answer it.

warm regards
qwerty

uncle_onion

Thanks "D"

Thanks everyone for their comments.The question on the tongues is the crunch for me.

UO

JanH

I have one question that I hope that some one can answer: If there is no God, How do people speak in tongues at churches? Whether this is from a good or bad source, where does it come from if there is not a God?

Glossolalia, the unintelligible sounds coming from extatic worshippers, does not tend to impress anthropologists who study it, not in Christian Churches, and neither in any of the countless so-called primitive religions that practice the same thing. Many communities practicing it does not even believe in any god. The practice of "speaking in tongues" predated Christianity with millennia, and was likely imported into Christianity through hellenistic mystery cults, some of which used drugs.

You don't need anything but psychological explanations for these pheonemena.

- Jan

jelly

(1) The great truth I think it explains is that a creator created the heavens and earth, and then (I believe through evolution) began the creative process that started simply and grew more complex eventually leading to man.

I think you’re correct about early Jewish thinkers but I couldn’t remember who so I didn’t write it. My point was that the fundamentalist view of genesis is not the only one or necessarily the oldest one. And that people have not just begun to change their view of genesis because of new science.

I don’t think genesis is an exact match for the evolutionary process, your correct it does not fit. That was not my point; my point was that the creator wanted to communicate with man point (1) above. So as a creator how do you create a piece of writing that is concise, and will convey the message you want to both the primitive nomadic tribe that was the Jews as well as modern mankind. It seems to me a lot of people say the bible is wrong because it isn’t scientific enough in its description of creation, however if it were scientific it would make itself a dated writing. For example if it was written for mankind now all the previous generations would be unable to understand it, and what makes perfect scientific sense now will be dated in 40 years. I believe the creator choose his style of writing in order to make the genesis account timeless and applicable to all generations. Genesis is no more incorrect that the story of the rich man and lazarus, didn’t happen but there is truth in it.

So my point is this just because the genesis account is not a perfect fit (or maybe even a good fit) for the evolutionary process I believe it does accomplish what it set out to do. And the fact that the bible is not scientific I believe does not prove that its incorrect. It seems we agree on some things I realize the bible is not a science book but I don’t think it was ever intended to be so in my opinion it does not make the creator to be a liar.

Summation:
Bible not a science book: True
Truth in genesis: True (not a scientific truth but truth never the less)
Getting cursed for sexual desire :I don’t read that in their but to each their own
Evolution: It’s a fact I just do not see why belief in evolution is mutually exclusive to belief in a creator.
Jelly
P.S. I enjoy your post JanH do not let my different ideas make you believe I don’t.

uncle_onion

"You don't need anything but psychological explanations for these pheonemena"

So where are ethe psychological explanations? This is what I need to see before I can go any further.

UO

larc

jelly,

I agree that God could have used the process of evolution to create the diversity of life that we see today. I do not believe, however, that God tryed to explain it to us in inspired scriptures. I think the early writings were man's attempts to explain it to themselves.

Neanderthals and the Bible?

Share this