Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Gorp

(716 posts)
20. I disagree. There were three primary authors of Genesis (as far as we know).
Tue Feb 26, 2013, 01:21 PM
Feb 2013

The original version is attributed to Enuma Elish (roughly 12th century BC) and subsequently revised by an author commonly known as "P" (for what that stands, I don't know). The 2nd creation myth was added by an author I can't put a name on somewhere in about the 9th century. It starts around 2:4.

But all that does is support my case that religious texts are living documents. They evolve with time, language translation, political influences on translation, inclusions, exclusions, and random commentaries inserted at whatever point in time.

The point has been made (in this thread) that since nobody was there to witness the "In the beginning" part, how could we know? Face it, 96% of the matter in the universe can't be explained, so called "dark matter". It has only been in the last 100 years that we've come to terms with the concept of cellular, molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, and quark theories. Most people don't even know about quarks or string theory. None of them are sufficient to explain the universe.

At the time Genesis was first written, there was the earth, the moon, the sun, and the stars. Other planets didn't even exist for them at the time. The Greeks (primarily) tracked and named the planets. Sailors named the constellations for guidance purposes. Earth was the only planet and everything else, including the sun, revolved around it. The math behind the contortions they used to describe it were astonishing for the time.

Copernicus really threw a monkey wrench into THAT mess, eh?

The reality, as we know it today (subject to change, of course), is that we're a minor planet in a minor solar system with a minor star on the outer tip of a minor galaxie in a universe too large to even consider. There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on our planet. And we just recently discovered a planet smaller than Earth (and hotter than Mercury) in another solar system.

The universe has to have other life somewhere, maybe nothing we would recognize as life, but life of some form. We keep thinking in terms of carbon-based life forms. The original Star Trek series touched on this issue with the mining episode where something was using a form of acid to kill people and drilled huge holes all over the place. It was a silicon-based life form. It was science fiction, but so were the communicators that the original Motorola flip phone mimmicked.

If there is a god who is omniscient, I hope he takes a vacation once in a while. That's a LOT of shit to keep track of! He/she/it needs a break.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"tantamount to abuse of our children." ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #1
Further proof that there are rational, reasonable theists. A HERETIC I AM Feb 2013 #2
The irony is that the "seven day" thing can be completely true,... Gorp Feb 2013 #3
nice points. ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #4
I've been discussing the concept of co-existance of creationism and evolution since the 70's. Gorp Feb 2013 #5
Creationism and evolution really can't coexist. At least not if you mean "special creation" or ID. yellowcanine Feb 2013 #6
You can use the definition you provided or what's currently called "guided evolution". Gorp Feb 2013 #7
Nah, we live in a freckled face kid!s computer nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #9
I don't do cosmology - I'm not into makeup. Gorp Feb 2013 #10
I don't have a problem with a God "imagining a universe." yellowcanine Feb 2013 #12
It's also a good description of the awareness of modesty (with regards to naughty bits). Gorp Feb 2013 #14
There's nothing in creationism that is science Bradical79 Feb 2013 #8
Right - any creator is not science. I misspoke. yellowcanine Feb 2013 #16
a whole new meaning to the big bang? ChairmanAgnostic Feb 2013 #19
"Eras" doesn't quite work either because the earth exists before the sun does. yellowcanine Feb 2013 #11
The day/era 4 thing with the sun has always baffled me. Where did "light" come from on day one? Gorp Feb 2013 #13
"hell is other people" Alternatively, if we are honest, "hell is other people and myself." yellowcanine Feb 2013 #17
I think "No Exit" at least implied that. Gorp Feb 2013 #21
No. It can't... SidDithers Feb 2013 #15
"uninformed ramblings of bronze age mystics". "uniformed" by science, anyways. yellowcanine Feb 2013 #18
I disagree. There were three primary authors of Genesis (as far as we know). Gorp Feb 2013 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Creationist Picks A Fig...»Reply #20