Evolution or Creation?

[scooter1369]

Genesis states that god created man in his image. How arrogant are we to assume that God looks like a human? What if he looked like an all encompassing, multi dimensional, ever changing being?

The Bible also states that Eve was created from part of Adam. Does this not sound like A-Sexual reproduction? Amoebas splitting to create two, unique individual beings? And maybe we evolved from that?

just a thought.

 

[muffler dragon]

Genesis states that god created man in his image. How arrogant are we to assume that God looks like a human? What if he looked like an all encompassing, multi dimensional, ever changing being?

In Judaism, there is no literal anthropomorphism. Thus, "image" denotes something other than physical appearance.

 

[generaladm]

FTR, there's nothing in the Tanakh that says the earth is flat.

Point of clarification: there is no literal anthropomorphism in the Tanakh; but instead, the usage of such phrases is for the finite to attempt to understand the Infinite.

This, too, is incorrect. There is no decree stating that non-Jews be condemned.

Not too offensive. Just ill-informed.

Jeez, tough crowd! What is this, a religion thread?

But seriously, I was just making a joke. I have profound respect for the tradition of the jewish scripture, and believe it is the only true source. Most of my criticism from that post was actually aimed at the King James (edited) version. But my real point was that the original scriptures were written at a time when man's thinking was much more primitive than now. You wouldn't want to follow a medical book written in whenever BC, or an engineering text, so why adhere to a tome that professes to know the origins of the universe? One point where I was correct was the lack of accuracy from the Jewish scripture to the multiple translations. If you look at Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, many of the saints have horns on their heads. This is because the Hebrew word for "horned" is very similar to the word for "halo". Since the American movement for creationism is based on the King James or later translations, it does raise a question of validity.

 

[buckeyegrad]

You can believe things that work outside the natural law, but it is impossible to have a rational dialogue when the people speaking to you are working inside the natural law.

Its not his fault others want to limit their perspective to only the natural law.

 

[muffler dragon]

Jeez, tough crowd! What is this, a religion thread?

But seriously, I was just making a joke.

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

I have profound respect for the tradition of the jewish scripture, and believe it is the only true source. Most of my criticism from that post was actually aimed at the King James (edited) version.

No argument from me on the errancy of the KJV.

But my real point was that the original scriptures were written at a time when man's thinking was much more primitive than now. You wouldn't want to follow a medical book written in whenever BC, or an engineering text, so why adhere to a tome that professes to know the origins of the universe? One point where I was correct was the lack of accuracy from the Jewish scripture to the multiple translations. If you look at Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel, many of the saints have horns on their heads. This is because the Hebrew word for "horned" is very similar to the word for "halo". Since the American movement for creationism is based on the King James or later translations, it does raise a question of validity.

No doubt, the KJV causes a number of questions and problems due to translation accuracy and wording.

Regarding the orgin of the universe, I'm of the mind that the Torah needn't give the details. Instead, to me, it presents the primacy of G-d and that the universe progressed under His Authority. But that's neither here nor there.

 

[generaladm]

Sorry for my misunderstanding.

No argument from me on the errancy of the KJV.

No doubt, the KJV causes a number of questions and problems due to translation accuracy and wording.

Regarding the orgin of the universe, I'm of the mind that the Torah needn't give the details. Instead, to me, it presents the primacy of G-d and that the universe progressed under His Authority. But that's neither here nor there.

No need at all to be sorry, I was just making a loopy late night post trying to be funny. I was actually trying to copy a David Cross rant that started with the line, "Do you realize that the Bible was written at a time when people were even dumber than we are now?". You obviously have a much greater knowledge of the scriptures than I, or most people on this thread, do. I utterly respect your right to follow your personal beliefs, just as I'm sure you respect mine. The start of the thread, "Evolution or Creation?", does imply that only one can be correct, and therefore causes the critique of Judeo-Christianity to be a large part of the discussion. I think the subject is very interesting, but really, after I read a few posts, it gives me a headache. I'm still trying to catch up a bit. BTW, even though I am not religious at all, I have always wanted to read an accurate translation of the Torah. Is there a good English translation you could recommend?

 

[muffler dragon]

No need at all to be sorry, I was just making a loopy late night post trying to be funny. I was actually trying to copy a David Cross rant that started with the line, "Do you realize that the Bible was written at a time when people were even dumber than we are now?". You obviously have a much greater knowledge of the scriptures than I, or most people on this thread, do. I utterly respect your right to follow your personal beliefs, just as I'm sure you respect mine. The start of the thread, "Evolution or Creation?", does imply that only one can be correct, and therefore causes the critique of Judeo-Christianity to be a large part of the discussion. I think the subject is very interesting, but really, after I read a few posts, it gives me a headache. I'm still trying to catch up a bit.

I completely concur; however, after I left Christianity and studied Judaism (for a time) I found that the two are rather divergent on the understanding of Genesis 1-2. Thus, the Creationism movement is not really Judaic in nature; but instead, based on Christian interpretation of the Jewish text.

BTW, even though I am not religious at all, I have always wanted to read an accurate translation of the Torah. Is there a good English translation you could recommend?

ArtScroll Jewish Tanakh is pretty good. The Chumash will add commentary that is rather illuminating.

If you're partial to electronic versions; then I offer this. Rashi's commentary on this translation as well. Very insightful.

 

[muffler dragon]

For anyone who would like to read the first two chapters of Genesis from a translation that deals with only the original Hebrew:

Genesis 1
Genesis 2

 

[Gatorubet]

Its not his fault others want to limit their perspective to only the natural law.

Touche' :tongue2:

(Personally, I find God in the so-called science far more than I find God in the so-called Scripture.)

 

[generaladm]

For anyone who would like to read the first two chapters of Genesis from a translation that deals with only the original Hebrew:

Genesis 1
Genesis 2

Sweet. Thanks!

 

[MaxBuck]

17. But of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die."

I would just like to know how anyone can read this, who has a lick of intelligence, and then say that Genesis is not a parable.

I've eaten strawberries, and tomatoes, and watermelon (yum!), and all sorts of delicious fruits. I've yet to find this Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but if it literally exists its fruit must be mighty goddamn tasty. (And that "goddamn" is literal, obviously.) Pray tell, Creationist, where on earth one can find this tree?

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I would just like to know how anyone can read this, who has a lick of intelligence, and then say that Genesis is not a parable.

I've eaten strawberries, and tomatoes, and watermelon (yum!), and all sorts of delicious fruits. I've yet to find this Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but if it literally exists its fruit must be mighty goddamn tasty. (And that "goddamn" is literal, obviously.) Pray tell, Creationist, where on earth one can find this tree?

Have you actually read the whole book of Genesis? If so is it possible that you tell me what happens in what you call an allegory detailing the happenings of Adam and Eve?

Edit: On further thought I think I'll be a little less cryptic.
Who did God tell not to eat the fruit? Was it you?
Did who was commanded not to eat the fruit eat the fruit?
Where were they who ate the fruit at when they ate the fruit?
What happened to that place after they ate the fruit?
Did the book happen to mention that the place was sealed up?
Could that be why you can't find it?

 

[MaxBuck]

Have you actually read the whole book of Genesis? If so is it possible that you tell me what happens in what you call an allegory detailing the happenings of Adam and Eve?

Edit: On further thought I think I'll be a little less cryptic. Thanks!
Who did God tell not to eat the fruit? Was it you?
Did who was commanded not to eat the fruit eat the fruit?
Where were they who ate the fruit at when they ate the fruit?
What happened to that place after they ate the fruit?
Did the book happen to mention that the place was sealed up?
Could that be why you can't find it?

I don't think so. I think the problem is that the Creation story is a parable.

After all, the Bible also tells us not to eat shellfish. But I have no problem finding them. They are at Kroger right next to the tilapia.

 

[t_BuckeyeScott]

I don't think so. I think the problem is that the Creation story is a parable.

After all, the Bible also tells us not to eat shellfish. But I have no problem finding them. They are at Kroger right next to the tilapia.

I realize it's fun to pick single verses out of context without figuring out who they written to and how they were meant to be taken, but I'm going to not respond until a you'ld like to have a serious conversation.

 

[Padraig]

I believe in intelligent design, but believe neither side has a compelling case to prove itself. Both require faith.

I will co-sign this.

I basically believe in both Evolution & Creation. I don't think it has to be an either/or position.

I believe in a God / Creator / (V GER :tongue2:) however you want to put it.

I don't believe the world was "cranked out in 6 days" so to speak. I believe most of what God has created and the continued involvement that I believe He has in Life is done in what I would consider a humanly "natural", scientifically explainable manner, though I also believe that He can and has "worked" in supernatural / miraculous & scientifically unexplainable ways throughout the course of creation.

No, I cannot prove many (most?) of the things I believe theologically, but what I believe has had a powerful impact on my life and many of my family and friends' lives that "makes sense" to me in a way that goes beyond needing mathematical/scientific proof for me to believe it.

JMO