The Genesis Fraud

[michaelsherlock]

"Not doctrinal"..lol, complete bullshit Drich. Which god was christ again? What is christ coming to save us from again? When did that happen again? Are you going to start blathering on about "not doctrinal" but "true enough"? Give me a fucking break. You shouldn't be so willing to come off like a snake in service of christ, if you want to spread that message. That's just my opinion.

But hell, let's run with it. God did not create us (or anything else in this world), there was no garden, no original sin, no sin at all, no fall of man, and death isn't some sort of curse placed upon us. I love your doctrine Drich.

I understand your frustration. I have been on many apologetic forums and debated with some of America's "Top" apologists, and at times I think I might have lost fewer braincells by repeatedly smashing my head against an iron wall. Belief is a fickle mistress!

Your words remind me of the early Church father, Origen, who said:

"Could any man of sound judgment suppose that the first, second and third days (of creation) had an evening and a morning, when there were as yet no sun or moon or stars? Could anyone be so unintelligent as to think that God made a paradise somewhere in the east and planted it with trees, like a farmer, or that in that paradise he put a tree of life, a tree you could see and know with your senses, a tree you could derive life from by eating its fruit with the teeth in your head? When the Bible says that God used to walk in paradise in the evening or that Adam hid behind a tree, no one, I think, will question that these are only fictions, stories of things that never actually happened, and that figuratively they refer to certain mysteries."

Phillip Schaff. Ante-Nicene Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen Parts First and Second. Grand Rapids. Christian: Origen. De Principiis. Pg. 616

And with regards to the NT, said:

"The same style of Scriptural narrative occurs abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a high mountain, or that the latter should show him all the kingdoms of the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent to one mountain), i.e., the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians? Or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be found in the Gospels by anyone who will read them with attention, and will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be admitted historically…"

Ibid.

In the end, we eat, drink, sleep, shit, wake up (not necessarily in that order) we occupy the same physical plain with those who dream of other plains and it is natural that these sleepwalkers occaisionally step on our toes.

[Drich]

What about the proto-evangelium?

In that He will strike at the Heel and God will deliver a death blow to "him?"

what about it? It was a promise to established in the beginning Hence the "proto"

I disagree. The two (OT and NT) have been bound by the doctrines of Christianity for centuries, but for a few attempts by the likes of Marcion and his followers.

I disagree with your disagreement. As Judism was an established religion for several thousand years before the establishment of Christianity and for the majority of that time Genesis was apart of that system of belief.
Thus seperating Genesis from Christianity and placing it in the Corner of Judism first. Meaning Jewish interpertation must and will take percedent over a simply traditional Christian interpertation of the book.
(This includes but not limited to the orgins of the books and stated timelines)

Oooh, Oooh, I do, I do. Christianity hijacked the legitimacy of the Jewish religion to attain successful propagation.

Oooh, Oooh!! thus sealing the arguement to my side in that Judism was a well established religion long before christian historeans messed up the interpertations and traditional readings of books like Genesis. Which again points to the futility of the OP. Why address a flawed christian interpertation of another's Religious corner stone text? Why not speak to the orginal interpertations of the texted in question?

Again at best all you efforts point to are mistakes made by earily church historeans.

Which beggs me to ask again: So what?

Whether you are aware of this fact or not, Christianity is built upon Judaism, and in reality quite a large sprinkle of "Paganism" as well. So, if you manage to demonstrate that the foundations of a given religion, or idea are built on less than solid foundations...what does that guy say happens to those who build things on sandy foundations?

and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall
Matthew 7:27

Exactly! Christianity is BASED on Judaism. So as you say why not attack the foundations OF Judaism? The OP looked at the Christian only interpretation of the book in question. Christians who accept the traditional roman catholic views do not see eye to eye with all of the same Jewish views. (Or with the rest of Christianity for that matter) That means if there is a discrepancy in a Jewish view, of a Jewish text then it should be addressed from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective. Again what the OP has done is address the flaws in Christianity that most of us are willing to admit they exist, because of the discrepancies of the Jewish accounts of the very same texts.

So again what does it matter that he has found flaws in a Christian interpretation of a Jewish text. This literally changes nothing.

---

"Not doctrinal"..lol, complete bullshit Drich. Which god was christ again? What is christ coming to save us from again? When did that happen again? Are you going to start blathering on about "not doctrinal" but "true enough"? Give me a fucking break. You shouldn't be so willing to come off like a snake in service of christ, if you want to spread that message. That's just my opinion.

But hell, let's run with it. God did not create us (or anything else in this world), there was no garden, no original sin, no sin at all, no fall of man, and death isn't some sort of curse placed upon us. I love your doctrine (or lack thereof) Drich.

again you show the limits of your understandings. You are desperately trying to make what I am saying fit your understanding of the church.
So I guess we need to address your understanding of "doctrine." I have not discussed doctrine for a very specific reason. Why you ask? Because "we" in the church can make a doctrine say anything we want it to say. Which means doctrine is not the standard you believe it to be. The bible however is that standard to worshiping the God of the bible. That is why I defer to the bible rather than "doctrine."

[NoMoreFaith]

Exactly! Christianity is BASED on Judaism. So as you say why not attack the foundations OF Judaism? The OP looked at the Christian only interpretation of the book in question. Christians who accept the traditional roman catholic views do not see eye to eye with all of the same Jewish views. (Or with the rest of Christianity for that matter) That means if there is a discrepancy in a Jewish view, of a Jewish text then it should be addressed from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective. Again what the OP has done is address the flaws in Christianity that most of us are willing to admit they exist, because of the discrepancies of the Jewish accounts of the very same texts.

You must have posted in the wrong thread, all this one is about is that there is good reason to speculate that Genesis is actually a much more recent document than previously believed.
Whether it is Jewish or Christian interpretation of that book is irrelevant to the dating of the original text and it is misleading to a discussion over its roots to discuss how different religions interpret that same text.

What does it change? It increases the probability the accounts are fictional, but by no means disproves anything.

So whats your point? Is there supposed to be a single piece of evidence that destroys religion? No, its done by pointing out all the little inaccuracies and chipping away at the base until its weakness and empty core is exposed.

again you show the limits of your understandings. You are desperately trying to make what I am saying fit your understanding of the church.
So I guess we need to address your understanding of "doctrine." I have not discussed doctrine for a very specific reason. Why you ask? Because "we" in the church can make a doctrine say anything we want it to say. Which means doctrine is not the standard you believe it to be. The bible however is that standard to worshiping the God of the bible. That is why I defer to the bible rather than "doctrine."

Any deference to the "bible" instead of "doctrine" is a pretence by default, since it relies on a specific interpretation of the text which is then asserted to be the correct interpretation.

However, apart from the assertion, sadly, it still makes your points as irrelevant as the next bible-assertion.

[michaelsherlock]

Exactly! Christianity is BASED on Judaism. So as you say why not attack the foundations OF Judaism? The OP looked at the Christian only interpretation of the book in question. Christians who accept the traditional roman catholic views do not see eye to eye with all of the same Jewish views. (Or with the rest of Christianity for that matter) That means if there is a discrepancy in a Jewish view, of a Jewish text then it should be addressed from a Jewish perspective and not a Christian perspective. Again what the OP has done is address the flaws in Christianity that most of us are willing to admit they exist, because of the discrepancies of the Jewish accounts of the very same texts.

You must have posted in the wrong thread, all this one is about is that there is good reason to speculate that Genesis is actually a much more recent document than previously believed.
Whether it is Jewish or Christian interpretation of that book is irrelevant to the dating of the original text and it is misleading to a discussion over its roots to discuss how different religions interpret that same text.

What does it change? It increases the probability the accounts are fictional, but by no means disproves anything.

So whats your point? Is there supposed to be a single piece of evidence that destroys religion? No, its done by pointing out all the little inaccuracies and chipping away at the base until its weakness and empty core is exposed.

again you show the limits of your understandings. You are desperately trying to make what I am saying fit your understanding of the church.
So I guess we need to address your understanding of "doctrine." I have not discussed doctrine for a very specific reason. Why you ask? Because "we" in the church can make a doctrine say anything we want it to say. Which means doctrine is not the standard you believe it to be. The bible however is that standard to worshiping the God of the bible. That is why I defer to the bible rather than "doctrine."

Any deference to the "bible" instead of "doctrine" is a pretence by default, since it relies on a specific interpretation of the text which is then asserted to be the correct interpretation.

However, apart from the assertion, sadly, it still makes your points as irrelevant as the next bible-assertion.

Nicely said.

[Drich]

You must have posted in the wrong thread, all this one is about is that there is good reason to speculate that Genesis is actually a much more recent document than previously believed.
Whether it is Jewish or Christian interpretation of that book is irrelevant to the dating of the original text and it is misleading to a discussion over its roots to discuss how different religions interpret that same text.

What does it change? It increases the probability the accounts are fictional, but by no means disproves anything.

So whats your point? Is there supposed to be a single piece of evidence that destroys religion? No, its done by pointing out all the little inaccuracies and chipping away at the base until its weakness and empty core is exposed.

Man you guys are all under the assumption that you are the smartest there by the first to ever come up with the obvious answer.

This point has been made and shot down by everyone except the op.

Short answer the Jews have different time lines than the traditional christians. Which put the genesis of the book of Genesis in the Hands of aberham rather than Moses, which can make the work about 1500 years or so older than than the OP's efforts to date the work. (Based on 1000 year old tradition of the roman catholic church)

The fact that the beginings of the work Moses named Genesis were first penned down by Aberham/Abramwould refute another claim that God can only speak Hebrew. Because Aberham was not the only Hebrew speaking person of his time. abram branched off of his father's nomadic tribe when God told him he would take him to a promised land.

Then I posted a link on Archeology.com that put the destomication of camels about 2000 years before what the OP claimed. After three unanswered challenges I assumed the OP could not or simply would not refute what has been contested..

[michaelsherlock]

Then I posted a link on Archeology.com that put the destomication of camels about 2000 years before what the OP claimed. After three unanswered challenges I assumed the OP could not or simply would not refute what has been contested..

I will respond to this when I get a chance, but I have addressed this apology in the 2nd volume of a three volume series I have authored. But I will get to you.

[Minimalist]

[Undeceived]

[NoMoreFaith]

Short answer the Jews have different time lines than the traditional christians. Which put the genesis of the book of Genesis in the Hands of aberham rather than Moses, which can make the work about 1500 years or so older than than the OP's efforts to date the work. (Based on 1000 year old tradition of the roman catholic church)

Irrelevant. Christianity is founded on Judaism, nobody said otherwise.
Whether Mr michealsherlock is correct or not is certainly up for debate and I stand undecided, but this response does nothing to move the discussion forward. What does it change? Nothing.
So the Jewish put a different timeline on things than Christians? It matters not one jot which timeline is correct, what matters is when it was written.
Personally I suspect its a bit of both. Very ancient scraps, with extra bits tagged on and thrown together over the years. Bit like the NT.

The fact that the beginings of the work Moses named Genesis were first penned down by Aberham/Abramwould refute another claim that God can only speak Hebrew.

I assume you mean Abram or Abraham. I find no reference to him being called Aberham or Abramwould.
You may well be right, I'm sure you've studied it more closely, but I found no immediate references to these spellings. Curious why you would use them, if Abraham would be a clearer method of getting your point across, since we are more aware of that usage. Why would you use an archaic or nonsense term instead of the one that would be understood by the audience it is intended for?

Then I posted a link on Archeology.com that put the destomication of camels about 2000 years before what the OP claimed. After three unanswered challenges I assumed the OP could not or simply would not refute what has been contested..

I think the fact remains that the question is not clearly answered by archeology yet and may never be. The OP's source on domestication of camels is not 100% convincing to me either.
Its definitely the weakest point in the text.

Look at that, we agree on something Drich!

[michaelsherlock]

The OP's source on domestication of camels is not 100% convincing to me either.
Its definitely the weakest point in the text.

Look at that, we agree on something Drich!

I agree too. The camel issue is one which is not settled, yet the archaeological evidence seems to suggest that camels were not domesticated in EGYPT before the first millenium BCE, the place where the camels are mentioned to have been in abundance.