There are no answers in Genesis

[Anomalocaris]

Decode implies a conscious code.   Genesis is not a code, it is simply a crass sales collateral, conceived by hucksterish would-be priest class, that steals from and plagiarizes other mythologies, in order to help sell a world view to the gullible that facilitates continued subservience to the priestly class.

I don't think that the authors of the Pentateuch had sinister motives; I think that they were just trying to understand and cope in the World that they inhabited.

the abusive overbearing parent who beats his children and rents his/her children out to work for income to him/herself may have, in his/her mind, only the noblest didactic intent and certainly nothing sinister.      Whether something should be regarded as sinister depends on the morality, as well as the suggestibility or impressionability, of the observer. 

An effective sales collateral must not contradict the prevailing understanding of the world amongst its intended audience unnecessarily, otherwise the efforts of the salesman would be wasted defending the unorthodox world view rather than on selling his ware, which in this case is the privileged authority of the priestly class.   So too the genesis would co-opt an account of the past, however vague and in parts mythical, to weave into an advocacy for enlofting the status of the priestly class, to use the above analogy, to overhear upon its people and co-opt their labor for its own benefit.

[emjay]

The atheists around here are too ignorant and touchy, try somewhere else.

I'm amused to hear that this is a forum where we're not supposed to criticize each other. That was not my impression in the past.

Basically, criticize me all you want while you're talking to me... I have no problem with that, but criticize me indirectly while you're talking to someone else and that's just plain rude and clearly passive-aggressive. Likewise, if you're talking to me and criticizing everyone else, it's the same thing. Either way it puts the person you're talking to and the people it's indirectly aimed at in a very awkward and uncomfortable position. I'm sure you'd feel just as uncomfortable if the roles were reversed.

That said, I still appreciate what you have to say on this forum, even now and even if we never speak again and/or you choose to ignore me going forward; when you're not behaving like that you come across, to me at least, as very knowledgeable, insightful, and empathetic... for instance willing to to look at multiple viewpoints... that's the Belacqua I like and respect.

[Jehanne]

I don't think that the authors of the Pentateuch had sinister motives; I think that they were just trying to understand and cope in the World that they inhabited.

the abusive overbearing parent who beats his children and rents his/her children out to work for income to him/herself may have, in his/her mind, only the noblest didactic intent and certainly nothing sinister.      Whether something should be regarded as sinister depends on the morality, as well as the suggestibility or impressionability, of the observer. 

An effective sales collateral must not contradict the prevailing understanding of the world amongst its intended audience unnecessarily, otherwise the efforts of the salesman would be wasted defending the unorthodox world view rather than on selling his ware, which in this case is the privileged authority of the priestly class.   So too the genesis would co-opt an account of the past, however vague and in parts mythical, to weave into an advocacy for enlofting the status of the priestly class, to use the above analogy, to overhear upon its people and co-opt their labor for its own benefit.

Consider Julius Caesar's cipher-shifting encryption scheme, which, apparently, was never broken during his day. One mistake that people of our time make with respect to those who lived decades to centuries to millennia ago is to assume that they thought pretty much as we do, and that is a major error; they simply didn't. Government was very simple, as were laws, as was political and social scheming, along with religious faith. In many respects, our ancestors in early history behaved liked high schoolers with those in prehistory probably being akin to those in middle school.

[Anomalocaris]

the abusive overbearing parent who beats his children and rents his/her children out to work for income to him/herself may have, in his/her mind, only the noblest didactic intent and certainly nothing sinister.      Whether something should be regarded as sinister depends on the morality, as well as the suggestibility or impressionability, of the observer. 

An effective sales collateral must not contradict the prevailing understanding of the world amongst its intended audience unnecessarily, otherwise the efforts of the salesman would be wasted defending the unorthodox world view rather than on selling his ware, which in this case is the privileged authority of the priestly class.   So too the genesis would co-opt an account of the past, however vague and in parts mythical, to weave into an advocacy for enlofting the status of the priestly class, to use the above analogy, to overhear upon its people and co-opt their labor for its own benefit.

Consider Julius Caesar's cipher-shifting encryption scheme, which, apparently, was never broken during his day.  One mistake that people of our time make with respect to those who lived decades to centuries to millennia ago is to assume that they thought pretty much as we do, and that is a major error; they simply didn't.  Government was very simple, as were laws, as was political and social scheming, along with religious faith.  In many respects, our ancestors in early history behaved liked high schoolers with those in prehistory probably being akin to those in middle school.

If there is one thing one could assume with great confidence about people of ages past is they are not too different from us in capacity for guile and rationalization, and in seeing and desiring the benefit from making others subservient to themselves.

[Belacqua]

Anyway, it's not true to say that we read Genesis in EXACTLY the same way we read Hesiod or Shakespeare -- for aesthetic pleasure and the introduction of memorable images. Obviously, just the fact that so many people take the Bible more seriously affects our reaction to it.

But since the arts in general deal with non-science issues that are important to life, Genesis is more like art than it is like science. It provides images and symbols, sometimes in narrative form, which enrich our thinking about our lives and the issues in our lives.

[Anomalocaris]

Anyway, it's not true to say that we read Genesis in EXACTLY the same way we read Hesiod or Shakespeare -- for aesthetic pleasure and the introduction of memorable images. Obviously, just the fact that so many people take the Bible more seriously affects our reaction to it.

But since the arts in general deal with non-science issues that are important to life, Genesis is more like art than it is like science. It provides images and symbols, sometimes in narrative form, which enrich our thinking about our lives and the issues in our lives.

Lie repeated by many people become THE gospel.  In this we agree.   Where we differ is in our assessment about whether lies repeated by many people become any truer, and whether people’s seemingly meritorious reactions to the lie is a credit to the lie or a credit to the people.   The essence is this: Is it creditable to pretend a lie is less false if many people are swooned by it.

[Jehanne]

Anyway, it's not true to say that we read Genesis in EXACTLY the same way we read Hesiod or Shakespeare -- for aesthetic pleasure and the introduction of memorable images. Obviously, just the fact that so many people take the Bible more seriously affects our reaction to it.

But since the arts in general deal with non-science issues that are important to life, Genesis is more like art than it is like science. It provides images and symbols, sometimes in narrative form, which enrich our thinking about our lives and the issues in our lives.

In the 19th-century belief in the existence of fairies was widespread; does that widespread belief impact or shape your views regarding fairies?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Anyway, it's not true to say that we read Genesis in EXACTLY the same way we read Hesiod or Shakespeare -- for aesthetic pleasure and the introduction of memorable images. Obviously, just the fact that so many people take the Bible more seriously affects our reaction to it.

So we're now not to read it as mythology or science just as a mere cultural decoration .....

But since the arts in general deal with non-science issues that are important to life, Genesis is more like art than it is like science. It provides images and symbols, sometimes in narrative form, which enrich our thinking about our lives and the issues in our lives.

Excuses Excuses.....

[Belacqua]

There's another reason why memorable, open-ended symbols are preferable to conceptual explanations. That is, in some areas, keeping the symbol active and multivalent is better than converting it into a simple moral message, as in an Aesop's fable.

This was worked out in detail in the Byzantine church during the iconoclasm controversies, but it's relevant to all kinds of religious writing and non-scientific literature.

It's related to the long-standing tradition of apophatic theology, mostly used in the Eastern Church but known in the West as well. The idea is that any concept we can use to describe God will be at best misleading, and quite possibly wrong. So for example if we assert that "God exists," the apophatic theologian will dispute this, saying that the word "exists," as understood by people, doesn't apply to God. If we say that tables exist and politicians exist and distant planets exist, we have a good idea of what the word "exists" means, but since God does not exist in the same way as those things, it's misleading to use the word.

Likewise when someone says "God is good." We have a fairly clear idea of what "good" means, and if we tried hard we could draw a circle and put in it the name of all the good things, and exclude from the circle all the bad things. But this doesn't work for God, who, being infinite, can't be excluded from any circle. Nor can he be limited to what our definition of "good" is, since the human mind is finite and God isn't. The human mind understands by dividing this from that, good from bad, but God being One has no divisions.

So in nearly every case, a conceptual description of God will be unacceptable.

This is why an open-ended symbol or image is better. When we engage with such a character -- even a fictional one -- it isn't reducible to a single coded meaning. (Again, this is why rich symbolism is not the same as allegory, which has one-to-one references.) A character like Job, for example, is to be engaged with almost like a real personality. He is not reducible to a single conceptual meaning. He behaves in ways we might not expect or approve of. He has an open-endedness that takes him beyond mere conceptual reference and more toward the way we engage with a living character.

This is why the iconodules finally won their debate with the iconoclasts. It was felt that pictures, rather than explanatory sentences, were less likely to be misleading and more likely to be something we can engage with in the proper open-ended way. Your icon of Mary can be engaged with almost as an individual person. You can love it, hate it, be confused by it, be frustrated by it, still value it, just as we do with our friends.

Similarly, in the 9th century, Kobo Daishi brought esoteric Buddhism from China to Japan. When people complained that the esoteric sutras were too hard and the cosmology and epistemology of the sect were beyond them, he said that one grasps more of the religion by looking at the paintings than by reading the sutras. Not because the paintings are comic-strip-like explanations of the doctrines, but because they prompt meditation on aspects of religion that are not to be exhausted, grasped, and then considered finished with.

So when the characters of the Bible are NOT reduced to allegorical, Aesop-like moral exemplars, they are fulfilling their purpose more effectively. They remain in the memory as open-ended, suggestive individuals. This is what keeps them alive and relevant.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There's another reason why memorable, open-ended symbols are preferable to conceptual explanations. That is, in some areas, keeping the symbol active and multivalent is better than converting it into a simple moral message, as in an Aesop's fable.

This was worked out in detail in the Byzantine church during the iconoclasm controversies, but it's relevant to all kinds of religious writing and non-scientific literature.

It's related to the long-standing tradition of apophatic theology, mostly used in the Eastern Church but known in the West as well. The idea is that any concept we can use to describe God will be at best misleading, and quite possibly wrong. So for example if we assert that "God exists," the apophatic theologian will dispute this, saying that the word "exists," as understood by people, doesn't apply to God. If we say that tables exist and politicians exist and distant planets exist, we have a good idea of what the word "exists" means, but since God does not exist in the same way as those things, it's misleading to use the word.

Likewise when someone says "God is good." We have a fairly clear idea of what "good" means, and if we tried hard we could draw a circle and put in it the name of all the good things, and exclude from the circle all the bad things. But this doesn't work for God, who, being infinite, can't be excluded from any circle. Nor can he be limited to what our definition of "good" is, since the human mind is finite and God isn't. The human mind understands by dividing this from that, good from bad, but God being One has no divisions.

So in nearly every case, a conceptual description of God will be unacceptable.

This is why an open-ended symbol or image is better. When we engage with such a character -- even a fictional one -- it isn't reducible to a single coded meaning. (Again, this is why rich symbolism is not the same as allegory, which has one-to-one references.) A character like Job, for example, is to be engaged with almost like a real personality. He is not reducible to a single conceptual meaning. He behaves in ways we might not expect or approve of. He has an open-endedness that takes him beyond mere conceptual reference and more toward the way we engage with a living character.

This is why the iconodules finally won their debate with the iconoclasts. It was felt that pictures, rather than explanatory sentences, were less likely to be misleading and more likely to be something we can engage with in the proper open-ended way. Your icon of Mary can be engaged with almost as an individual person. You can love it, hate it, be confused by it, be frustrated by it, still value it, just as we do with our friends.

Similarly, in the 9th century, Kobo Daishi brought esoteric Buddhism from China to Japan. When people complained that the esoteric sutras were too hard and the cosmology and epistemology of the sect were beyond them, he said that one grasps more of the religion by looking at the paintings than by reading the sutras. Not because the paintings are comic-strip-like explanations of the doctrines, but because they prompt meditation on aspects of religion that are not to be exhausted, grasped, and then considered finished with.

So when the characters of the Bible are NOT reduced to allegorical, Aesop-like moral exemplars, they are fulfilling their purpose more effectively. They remain in the memory as open-ended, suggestive individuals. This is what keeps them alive and relevant.

So a long ramble to say the same point i already dealt with......