Flat Earth Theory.

[BNR32FAN]

Who believes this ?

King James Bible
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? Numbers 22:28

Ok the first portion of that verse put a mental picture in my head that I was like wait what?!!

 

[AV1611VET]

Who believes this ?

King James Bible
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? Numbers 22:28

 

[Phil G]

Who believes this ?

King James Bible
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? Numbers 22:28

Back up a bit and answer whether you believe Jesus is a literal door or a literal vine

 

[trophy33]

Ok so we both believe in miracles and that’s tremendous, I still think that the only real difference between our interpretations of Genesis 1 is derived from our belief in the accuracy of the scientific dating methods. Would you agree?

No, the difference is in the ignorance of what Genesis 1/2 is and when it was written. Its similar to ignorance that Psalms are poetry, for example.

Even without any scientific discoveries, these sources should not be used to formulate scientific claims (like the age or the shape of the universe).

 

[trophy33]

You mean here?

Wiseman hypothesis

When we name something and put the word "hypothesis" after it, we still cannot claim it like it were a fact.

What about the simulation hypothesis?

Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

BTW, it seems that the simulation hypothesis has actually more empirical evidence than the claim that Genesis was written by Adam.

 

[trophy33]

And here’s another thing, yeah the Bible is full of metaphors, does that mean we can just ascribe any passage we want as being metaphorical?

No. Its not based on what we want, but on what is the nature of the text we are reading. Its genre, topic, origin, literary devices.

The metaphors in the Bible are obvious, they’re not presented as being literal. Genesis 1 specifically says God called the light day and the darkness night, it also specifically says and there was evening and there was morning for each individual day of creation.

Genesis 1 and 2 are mythology. Even though they use some metaphors (like trees, dust etc.), they are not just a metaphor. A myth is a full coherent narrative, while metaphors are single things/devices used in them.

Its similar to a song. Songs usually contain metaphors, but are not metaphors themselves.

I want to apologize for where this discussion has gone because I don’t like where it’s headed and I feel responsible for why it’s gone so poorly. I should’ve done a better job at refraining from antagonistic remarks and for failing you in that regard I sincerely do apologize. I have a tendency to get frustrated when people reject explanations that to me are blatantly obvious and I need to keep in mind that what is obvious to me might not be obvious to everyone else. So please forgive me for my discourteous and disrespectful comments they were not warranted.

I did not register any antagonism from your side beyond what is a common disagreement opposition, so do not worry. I am used to worse and I am doing worse.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thats just another of your claims from your private Fantasialand.

You mean here?

Wiseman hypothesis

When we name something and put the word "hypothesis" after it, we still cannot claim it like it were a fact.

Just don't tell me it's one of "my claims from my private Fantasialand" and expect me to believe you.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

BTW, it seems that the simulation hypothesis has actually more empirical evidence than the claim that Genesis was written by Adam.

"The simulation hypothesis proposes that what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, in which humans themselves are constructs."Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

I have been reading "How Emotions are made" by Lisa Feldman Barrett, Ph.D. is among the top 1% most cited scientists in the world for her revolutionary research in psychology and neuroscience.

The simulation is the work of the brain. But the brain itself is not a simulation beyond our concept of it. So much to be said about constructionism.

Theory of constructed emotion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[trophy33]

Just don't tell me it's one of "my claims from my private Fantasialand" and expect me to believe you.

So, what is your evidence for this extraordinary claim apart from the fact that somebody else claimed that, too? So far it seems that this Fantasialand is just not your private.

 

[trophy33]

"The simulation hypothesis proposes that what humans experience as the world is actually a simulated reality, in which humans themselves are constructs."Simulation hypothesis - Wikipedia

I have been reading "How Emotions are made" by Lisa Feldman Barrett, Ph.D. is among the top 1% most cited scientists in the world for her revolutionary research in psychology and neuroscience.

The simulation is the work of the brain. But the brain itself is not a simulation beyond our concept of it. So much to be said about constructionism.

Theory of constructed emotion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Brain could be a construct of the mind. But these are pure speculations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, the difference is in the ignorance of what Genesis 1/2 is and when it was written. Its similar to ignorance that Psalms are poetry, for example.

Even without any scientific discoveries, these sources should not be used to formulate scientific claims (like the age or the shape of the universe).

So I have to believe that Genesis came from man and is not the inspired word of God? Now I’m not trying to be impolite here I’m just asking is that the way your saying that I should view Genesis? That it was written by man and therefore is subject to the inaccuracies and mythological traditions of man?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, what is your evidence for this extraordinary claim apart from the fact that somebody else claimed that, too?

Toldoths and colophons.

So far it seems that this Fantasialand is just not your private.

I can tell you're not really interested in learning.

 

[trophy33]

Toldoths and colophons.

Toldoths and colophons what. Try to use at least full sentences.

I can tell you're not really interested in learning.

Thats kind of funny.

 

[trophy33]

So I have to believe that Genesis came from man and is not the inspired word of God? Now I’m not trying to be impolite here I’m just asking is that the way your saying that I should view Genesis? That it was written by man and therefore is subject to the inaccuracies and mythological traditions of man?

The whole Bible was written by men. Inspiration is not an automatic dictation.

And those men used various genres. Myths, songs, proverbs, laws, parables, apocalyptic literature... is this not a common knowledge? I am a bit uncertain if or why its such a news for some Christians.

Why do you have such a problem with me saying Gen 1/2 are mythological, but not with me saying that Psalms are songs? Both are just genres. The genres dictate how we read them, but are not related to inspiration as such (as if only some genres were allowed for inspiration and the rest not).

 

[BNR32FAN]

The whole Bible was written by men. Inspiration is not an automatic dictation.

And those men used various genres. Myths, songs, proverbs, laws, parables, apocalyptic literature... is this not a common knowledge? I am a bit uncertain if or why it’s such a news for some Christians.

Yes and acknowledge all of that but we’re talking specifically about Genesis. You can’t just say that the Bible is filled with songs and poetry and metaphors then apply that to any portion you want, there are literary devices associated with each of these styles of writing. That’s like saying a car has a muffler so you can call any part on the car a muffler if you want, it’s not a viable argument. If the six day creation wasn’t intended to be taken literally it wouldn’t have been necessary to mention in verse 3 that God created the light and called the light day and the darkness night. There’s no purpose for making this statement if the six days are intended to be metaphorical for a period longer than a single day and not representative of six literal days. Furthermore there’s no purpose for specifically stating that there was evening and morning for each particular creation day if the word day was intended to be metaphorical for a period of time that is longer than a literal day. What is the metaphorical meaning? When a metaphor is used and the meaning isn’t either common knowledge or explicitly explained then it fails to serve a purpose. Why did you quote the passages about our kidneys being the source of our thoughts? Because it was an obvious metaphor that anyone could detect.

Why do you have such a problem with me saying Gen 1/2 are mythological, but not with me saying that Psalms are songs? Both are just genres. The genres dictate how we read them, but are not related to inspiration as such (as if only some genres were allowed for inspiration and the rest not).

Because there’s an obvious difference between the literary style and genre of Psalms and Genesis, they are not even remotely written in the same literary format.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

If the six day creation wasn’t intended to be taken literally it wouldn’t have been necessary to mention in verse 3 that God created the light and called the light day and the darkness night.

Calling "light", "Day", "Night", "Darkness" fit with the figurative nature of the narrative without needing to be literal..

There’s no purpose for making this statement if the six days are intended to be metaphorical for a period longer than a single day and not representative of six literal days. Furthermore there’s no purpose for specifically stating that there was evening and morning for each particular creation day if the word day was intended to be metaphorical for a period of time that is longer than a literal day. What is the metaphorical meaning?

"Metaphor" is not the only form of figurative language.

1. Simile
2. Metaphor
3. Personification
4. Onomatopoeia
5. Oxymoron
6. Hyperbole
7. Litotes
8. Idiom
9. Alliteration
10. Allusion
11. Synecdoche, etc

Genesis creation account is myth, as in a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Calling "light", "Day", "Night", "Darkness" fit with the figurative nature of the narrative without needing to be literal..


"Metaphor" is not the only form of figurative language.

1. Simile
2. Metaphor
3. Personification
4. Onomatopoeia
5. Oxymoron
6. Hyperbole
7. Litotes
8. Idiom
9. Alliteration
10. Allusion
11. Synecdoche, etc

Genesis creation account is myth, as in a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon.

Ok the creation account came from one of two places. It either came from God or it came from man who completely fabricated the entire creation process because no man existed to be able to give a testimony as to what actually took place. Which one is your belief, or do you have an alternative option?

 

[Apple Sky]

Ok the creation account came from one of two places. It either came from God or it came from man who completely fabricated the entire creation process because no man existed to be able to give a testimony as to what actually took place. Which one is your belief, or do you have an alternative option?

I believe the whole account of Genesis 1 & it most definitely came from God.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Ok the creation account came from one of two places. It either came from God or it came from man who completely fabricated the entire creation process because no man existed to be able to give a testimony as to what actually took place. Which one is your belief, or do you have an alternative option?

Why only such extreme mutually exclusive choices?

Thanks for asking though. It is not very often that someone asks me for my thoughts, beliefs and opinions.

I think at some point in time, probably after the Israelites were already a faith community, someone decided they should put their story and stories in writing. Without the benefit of science knowledge we have today, the writer or writers used some common beliefs of their time but also added their own distinctive and unique Godly inspired perspective.

With this inspiration the author starts with the existence of a supreme God. Not a god of winds or waters or activities or even abstract concepts, but a single creator God of all things. And the process of creation was a process of order in their otherwise chaotic world. And most importantly, this God is good and creates good things.

That is my take away from the creation narratives. No science or exact chronology needed.

 

[Jipsah]

Look all you have to do is answer yes or no, you don’t have to explain anything, I’ll explain what it means. <ROFL>