1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    14 Dec '08 16:302 edits
    I would like to dedicate this thread to creation myths. After all, we came from somewhere, no? I know that most of you know that I am a Christian, and as such my faith has been attacked mostly on these threads from the first few chapters of Genesis. For example, I have heard that the creation order in Genesis is out of order. For example, how could plants come before the sun and how could the earth only be 6000 years old etc, but when comparing the creation stories to other creation myths, I have come to realize that perhaps the Genesis account is a strenght and not a weakness. In fact, it is much more believable in comparison to other religions. To help prove my point, lets examine the creation myths next to that of Genesis. I think we should start with the oldest religions, since if there be a God, he would have existed during ancient times just as he exists today. So lets start with the oldest organized religion which is Hinduism going back to 1500 bce.

    A Hindu Creation Story
    Before time began there was no heaven, no earth, and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He watched over by the mighty serpant. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion. For the depths of a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command. Vishne spoke to his servant: "It's time to begin", Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded, "Create the world". A wind swept up the waters, Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heaven. He made another part into the earth. With the part of the flower he created the skies. The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees, and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he have the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation.

    Now lets compare this to the other ancient religion of Judaism dating back to about 1400 bce. We all have read the account in Genesis I'm sure, so I don't see a point in posting it. Just read this account and compare it to that of Hinduisms and ask yourself which is more believable.

    Of course, what of the "intellectuals"? What do they have to say about creation? Lets start with the ancient intellectual. What did the Greeks say about creation? Hesiod, in his Theogomy, says that Chaos existed in the beinning, and then gave birth to Gaea (the Earth), Tartarus (the Underworld), Eros (desire), Nyx (the darkness of the night) and Erebus (the darkness of the UNderworld). Gaea brought forth Ouranos, the strary sky, her equal, to cover her, the hells, and the fruitless deep of the Sea, "without sweet uinon of love', out of her own self. But afterwards, Hesiod tells, she lay with Heaven and bore the World-Ocean Oceanus, Coeus and Crius and the Titans Hyperion and Iapetus, Theia and Rhea, Themis and Mnemosyne and Phoebe of the golden crown of lovely Tethys. "After them was born Cronos the wily, youngest and most terrible of her children, and he hated his lusty sire. Cronos, at Gaia's urging, castrates Uranus. He marries Rhea who bears him Hestia, Demetor, Hera, Hades, Poseidon, and Zeus. Zues and his brothers overthrow Cronos and the other Titans, then draws lots to determine what each of them will rule. Zues draws the sky, Poseidon draws the sea, and Hades draws the underworld. The Earth was contested and no one of them had absolute sovereingty over it, as shown by Posiedons' anger when Zues forced him to leave the battlefield in the Illiad.


    Of course, there is also the modern day intellectual. This creation myth revolves around one world which is evolution. Specifially, it revolves around stellar evolution, biological evoluction, and cultural evolution. It is passed down as a sacred creation story much like the traditional creation myths passed down through oral cultures and sacred texts. Of course, what goes unanswered is how the universe came to be? How did things come to be in order to evolve? This is a question both in regards to matter as it is in regards to life. Of course the latter is addressed with abiogenesis, but unfortunatly it is basless in the sense that it has never been observed or duplicated which is a conundrum in the world of scientific world based upon the scientific method.
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    14 Dec '08 16:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    I would like to dedicate this thread to creation myths. After all, we came from somewhere, no? I know that most of you know that I am a Christian, and as such my faith has been attacked mostly on these threads from the first few chapters of Genesis. For example, I have heard that the creation order in Genesis is out of order. For example, how could plants ...[text shortened]... a conundrum in the world of scientific world based upon the scientific method.
    Do you suppose that the Hindus and the Jews believe that their creation myths are the literal truth? Or do you suppose that they accept them as 'stories' that are meant to convey a certain point? Christians would do well to drop any literal understanding of the Genesis myth.

    Your understanding of evolution is laughable. You chide scientists for not directly observing 'abiogenesis', but let me ask you a question: Did you observe the Genesis creation cycle? Did you observe anything that allegedly transpired in the bible? No? But you still believe them to be the literal truth. Scientists do NOT have a "sacred creation story." What they have are a number of different theories on how life originated, none of which are accepted as the definitive truth.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    14 Dec '08 22:091 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Do you suppose that the Hindus and the Jews believe that their creation myths are the literal truth? Or do you suppose that they accept them as 'stories' that are meant to convey a certain point? Christians would do well to drop any literal understanding of the Genesis myth.

    Your understanding of evolution is laughable. You chide scientists for not dire erent theories on how life originated, none of which are accepted as the definitive truth.
    Well to say that ALL Hindus/Jews do not take their creation stories literally would be incorrect just like it would be to say that ALL Christians take the account in Genesis as literal.

    To illustrate my point, I will direct your attention to a Jew who is also a scientist whom I have talked about before. His name is Dr. Gerald Schroeder who takes the Genesis account as literal and wrote a book called "Genesis and the Big Bang" to illustrate his points. He is able to marry the Genesis account with many finding in science and is an interesting read.

    I guess my point is, is that the Genesis account in terms of ancient myths is about as accurate as there is out there no matter your interpretation of it. In addition, as with most stories in the Bible there is more truth in these stories than people like yourself give them credit. Now as to how much credit we give them is up to ones personal discretion.

    By the way, what makes my understanding of evolution laughable? What did I say to attack it? In fact, I do not view both creation and evolution as mutually exclusive as you seem to view them. Now as for the rest of the questions out there such as where did matter come from and where did life come from, these are a matter of belief, pure and simple. So you say that mankind was formed from a bunch of amino acids from the dust of the earth? Congratulations, the Bible says the same!! Now go out there and make me a living cell!!! By the way, I won't give you anything to work with. If you want the building blocks to play with to try and get them to work, make them yourself. 😉
  4. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    14 Dec '08 23:01
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well to say that ALL Hindus/Jews do not take their creation stories literally would be incorrect just like it would be to say that ALL Christians take the account in Genesis as literal.

    To illustrate my point, I will direct your attention to a Jew who is also a scientist whom I have talked about before. His name is Dr. Gerald Schroeder who takes the Genes ...[text shortened]... u want the building blocks to play with to try and get them to work, make them yourself. 😉
    If Genesis is all about the Big Bang, you miss so much.
  5. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    14 Dec '08 23:56
    Originally posted by whodey
    Well to say that ALL Hindus/Jews do not take their creation stories literally would be incorrect just like it would be to say that ALL Christians take the account in Genesis as literal.

    To illustrate my point, I will direct your attention to a Jew who is also a scientist whom I have talked about before. His name is Dr. Gerald Schroeder who takes the Genes ...[text shortened]... u want the building blocks to play with to try and get them to work, make them yourself. 😉
    evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. birds and fish did not appear before insects. there wasn't a period where all animals were vegetarians. plants did not exist without the sun.

    and perhaps the most important thing: evolution claims that natural selection occurs even now, that the individual with the most fit genetic material gets to pass it on. which means that new species will die and appear in the future. creationism says that god has been slacking off since the sixth day.

    what is NOT mutually exclusive is evolutionism and a creator. unprovable though. that is where faith come in. after science no longer be applied.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Dec '08 03:07
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    [b]evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. birds and fish did not appear before insects. there wasn't a period where all animals were vegetarians. plants did not exist without the sun.
    er....um.....the diets of birds vary greatly. Some are herbivorious, eating grasses, plants, fruits, nuts, seeds, pollen, nector etc, and some are carnivorious, eathing insects, worms, spiders, crustacians, fish, reptiles, or other birds. In addition, some are omnivorious which means they will eat about anything. Now to say that the original birds could not have been all herbivious, or that the original carnivores could not have survived on fish, reptiles, or other birds is quite an assumption. As for the bit about the plants needing the sun, I thought I covered this with you in another thread. Obviously you were not impressed.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Dec '08 03:11
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi

    and perhaps the most important thing: evolution claims that natural selection occurs even now, that the individual with the most fit genetic material gets to pass it on. which means that new species will die and appear in the future. creationism says that god has been slacking off since the sixth day.

    what is NOT mutually exclusive is evolutionism and a creator. unprovable though. that is where faith come in. after science no longer be applied.[/b]
    The same data could be used to say that this favors an intelligent being at the helm of evolution. Why do things seem to have come to an abrupt stop? Has evolution been slacking off? Of course, evolution has its theories about such things, but that is all. What say you?
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Dec '08 03:161 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    what is NOT mutually exclusive is evolutionism and a creator. unprovable though. that is where faith come in. after science no longer be applied.[/b]
    I never suggested that science not be applied under any circumstance. My only point here is to show that out of all the creation myths, Genesis is pretty spectacular, don't you think? At least for me, it is the most plausable considering what I know about science. Having said that, it is part of why I think it was divinley inspired. Just look at the great intellectual minds of Greek society and how they picured how it all started and compare that to a bunch of slave nomadic sheep herders in the desert had to say about it. What gives?
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Dec '08 03:19
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    If Genesis is all about the Big Bang, you miss so much.
    Did I ever say that Genesis is ONLY about the Big Bang? No. However, if you exclude the Big Bang altogether then perhaps it is you who is missing out on so much.
  10. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    15 Dec '08 03:486 edits
    Just for kicks, I did some more digging. I have heard in the past that much of what came from the Judaic faith came from such belief systems as the Sumerians and Egyptians. So lets examine their creation myths.

    Sumerians creation myth
    "The god An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga create the Sumerians (the black headed people) and the animals. Then kings descend from the sky and the first cities are founded - Eridu, Bad-tibira, Larsa, Sippar, and Shuruppak. The god Enki, or god of waters, warns the hero Atra-hasis) and gives him instructions for an ark.

    Of course, all that is shared between the two peoples is the flood tradition and the building of an ark as where the creation myths could not be any more different. All this seems to indicate is that both peoples had a flood history of some sort.

    The Egyptian Creation myths
    There are three separate cosmogenenies in Egyptian mythology, corresponding to at least three separate groups of worshippers.
    1. The Ennead, in which Atum arose from the primordial waters (Neith), and masturbated to relieve his loneliness. HIs semen and breath became Tefnut (miosture).....(BTW: I am not making this stuff up!!! And no, hand of hecate did not put me up to it)....and Shu (dryness), respectively. From Shu and Tefnut, were born Geb (earth), and Nut, (sky), who were born in a state of permanent copulation. Shu separated them, and their children were
    Ausare (Osiris, death), Set (desert), ASet (Isis, life), and Nebet Het (Nephthys, fertile land). Osiris and Isis were a couple, as were Nepthys and Set.
    2. The Ogdoad, in which Ra arose, either in an egg, or a blue lotus, as a result of the creative interaction between the primordial forces of Nu/Naunet (water), Amun/Amunet (air), Kuk/Kanket (darkness), and Huh/Hauhet (eternity). Ra then created Hathor, his wife, with whom they had a son, Hor (Horus, in the form known as Horus the Elder), who was married to Isis. This cosmology also includes Anupu (Anubis) as lord of the dead, amongst others.
    3. The third group for whom Ptah was eternal and everlasting, and he spake the world and all the gods into existence, in a similar manner to Judeo-Christian belief about their concept of God.

    So one could aruge that the Jewish people stole or shared their creation myth with the Egyptians based upon the later belief system. However, if they stole the belief system, why then is it the Jewish people alone who elaborate on it in such a way as where the Egyptian myth vaguely mentions how it all came about? In addition, the first two creation myths appear to be very similar and home grown as where the last creation myth seems to be foriegn. For me, this only proves that the Israelite people were very intimate with the Egyptian culture as scripture would indicate. After all, according to scripture they lived for hundreds of years together. And lastly, if they did steal it from the Egyptians they did a pretty good job in terms of the order of things even though not all are in agreement that the Biblical order could have occurred as is. The Judeo creation story still wins hands down.
  11. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    15 Dec '08 04:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    Did I ever say that Genesis is ONLY about the Big Bang? No. However, if you exclude the Big Bang altogether then perhaps it is you who is missing out on so much.
    Stop being so defensive. You sound like Adam.
  12. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Dec '08 08:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    er....um.....the diets of birds vary greatly. Some are herbivorious, eating grasses, plants, fruits, nuts, seeds, pollen, nector etc, and some are carnivorious, eathing insects, worms, spiders, crustacians, fish, reptiles, or other birds. In addition, some are omnivorious which means they will eat about anything. Now to say that the original birds could no ...[text shortened]... the sun, I thought I covered this with you in another thread. Obviously you were not impressed.
    light coming from all over the place and heating up the earth? the earth existing before the sun? i was less than impressed.
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Dec '08 08:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    I never suggested that science not be applied under any circumstance. My only point here is to show that out of all the creation myths, Genesis is pretty spectacular, don't you think? At least for me, it is the most plausable considering what I know about science. Having said that, it is part of why I think it was divinley inspired. Just look at the great ...[text shortened]... that to a bunch of slave nomadic sheep herders in the desert had to say about it. What gives?
    the babylonians had a similar creation myth. did god inspired them also and they were to heathens to react or did the shepherds copy that creation myth. what do you think is more plausible.
  14. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    15 Dec '08 08:50
    Originally posted by whodey
    Just for kicks, I did some more digging. I have heard in the past that much of what came from the Judaic faith came from such belief systems as the Sumerians and Egyptians. So lets examine their creation myths.

    Sumerians creation myth
    "The god An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga create the Sumerians (the black headed people) and the animals. Then kings des ...[text shortened]... the Biblical order could have occurred as is. The Judeo creation story still wins hands down.
    😠

    oblivious.

    what judeo creation story? it was inspired by other cultures. it is not really judeo. what order of creation? the "judeo-biblical" one or the real creation order, the one most scientists (real) agree on?
    "the judeo story wins hands down" wins what? the prize for one of the few surviving stories? what did the creation story get right apart from "let there be light"?
  15. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    16 Dec '08 03:151 edit
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    the babylonians had a similar creation myth. did god inspired them also and they were to heathens to react or did the shepherds copy that creation myth. what do you think is more plausible.
    Hear is the Babylonian creation myth. It is recounted in the "Epic of Creation" also known as the Enthma Elish.

    In the poem, the god Marduk is created to defend the divine beings from an attack plotted by the ocean goddess Tiamat. The hero Marduk offers to save the gods only if he is appointed their supreme unquestioned leader and is allowed to remain so even after the threat passes. The gods agree to Marduk's terms. Marduke challenges Tiamat to combat and destroys her. He then rips her corpse into two halves with which he fashions the earth and the skies. Marduk then creates the calendar, organizes the planets, stars and regulates the moon, sun, and weather. The gods pledge their allegiance to Marduk and he creates Babylon as the terrestrial counterpart to the realm of the gods. Marduk then destroys Tiamat's husband, Kingu using his blood to create humankind so that they can do the work of gods.

    Sure, that sounds EXACTLY like the Hebrew creation myth. I don't know what I was thinking. Come to think of it, I don't know what the Babylonians were thinking either. 🙄
Back to Top