\doc\web\99\12\genwrite.txt From: "Patterson, Ron" The book of Genesis was clearly written after the Babylonian exile because about half the book is purely Caldiean. "The intention" was to blend two creation myths, the Caldiean and the Hebrew, into one account to make it acceptable to all the Jewish people. The stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Hebrew legends, retold over and over, and greatly embellished no doubt, until they were written down after the Babylonian exile. Date forwarded: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 09:15:42 -0400 (EDT) From: "Patterson, Ron" To: "'upstream-list@cycad.com'" Subject: RE: [Upstream] Creation in place... Date sent: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:13:43 -0500 Forwarded by: upstream-list@cycad.com Send reply to: upstream-list@cycad.com > From: Mark P. Smith[SMTP:windsurf@mindspring.com] > > There are many ways to read the book of Genesis if you don't take it > literally. There are actually two different creation accounts that > appear to be inconsistent if you take them literally, but I don't think > that was the intent anyway. The intention was to show that God created > the universe > Mark, The book of Genesis was clearly written after the Babylonian exile because about half the book is purely Caldiean. "The intention" was to blend two creation myths, the Caldiean and the Hebrew, into one account to make it acceptable to all the Jewish people. > On the other hand, Genesis is also in fact a book of history, history > that appears in many cases to be backed up by independent historical > records. > Many myths are legends built around some historical event, like a great flood. This fact does not make the myth good history. > The geneologies are elaborate, but there may well be cases where there > are gaps. > It is one big gap. Surely you must realize that Adam and Eve were purely mythological characters. Do you really believe there was a man named Methuselah, and that he lived for 969 years? The stories of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Hebrew legends, retold over and over, and greatly embellished no doubt, until they were written down after the Babylonian exile. > I am absolutely astounded at how some people on both sides of > this argument get their dander up: > Mark, these people who sit on the Kansas board of education are very real. The Creation Research Institute is a real institution with very real grass-roots influence. If they are successful they will remove science as we know it from our schools. Next they will remove it from all government institutions, like the Smithsonian. If this doesn't get your dander up it bloody well should. Wake up and smell the coffee. > The fact is that no one really knows and no one wants to admit it. > What one knows and does not know is not the point. What is in question here is a thing called "The Scientific Method". Will science continue to investigate, unencumbered by religious zealots, or will fundamentalist religion dictate what can be studied in our state schools and universities. > On the other hand, a strong faith should not be the enemy of > any scientist. > A strong faith by whom? The strong faith of Henry Morris, Duand Gish and others like them are definitely the enemy of science. Any man or woman who tries to incorporate their strong faith into the law of the land is an enemy of science. As for dialogue between science and religion, I know of no scientist who would have a problem with this. It is the fundamentalists who refuse dialogue. After all Mark, when you are in possession of absolute truth, what is there to discuss. Ron Patterson Date sent: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 22:19:03 -0400 From: Gregg Farrier Organization: GJF, Inc. To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: Re: [Upstream] Creation in place... Ron must be referring to the Chaldean civilization that captured and exiled Judah ca. 600 BC. The witness of the Bible itself says that Moses (15-1400 BC) is the author. However there is a school sometimes known as the higher critics who espoused what is known as the documentary hypothesis which like Ron have no time for the inspiration of the Bible. They view the Bible as an edited piece of work from man. What would be your action if the Bible was from God. Would you obey it? The problem that the higher critics have is that the Bible doesn't say what they want it to say, so they edit it. Do you have some proof, rather than speculation that the books of Moses were edited in ca. 600-500 BC? I remember seeing a documentary or the like back in my college days in the 60s about a dig where they found a tooth-just a tooth which they showed and they constructed a whole skull from it. Oh come now. I'm afraid that the higher critics (and the evolutionists) do the same with the Bible. Gregg Date forwarded: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:20:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Patterson, Ron" To: "'upstream-list@cycad.com'" Subject: RE: [Upstream] Creation in place... Date sent: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 14:18:03 -0500 Forwarded by: upstream-list@cycad.com Send reply to: upstream-list@cycad.com Arthur wrote: > Ron, do you have more documentation on the background of the > writing of genesis, dating of 1st time it was written down, etc? > What is caldien? I do know it follows the Sumerian myth, and > the Babylonians who inherited it, evidently Abraham was a resident > of this cultural influence. > Yes, I have it, "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" but I cannot seem to lay my hands on it right now. I will keep looking until I find it however. "What is caldien?" Sorry, my spelling was atrocious. The word is "Chaldean". Chaldea was the area now called Iraq, (with different borders of course) of which Babylon was the principal city. "The discovery of 12 cuneiform tablets in Ashurbanipal's library at Nineveh in northern Iraq came as something of a sensation in the field of biblical scholarship. When the first discovery was translated by the British Assyriologists George Smith (The Chaldean Account of Genesis, 1876), it turned out to be an Akkadian account of the flood story found in Genesis: To the land of Nishir the ship took its course. The mountain of the land of Nishir held fast the ship and allowed it not to stir... When the seventh day came, I (Utnapishtim) sent forth a dove and let her go. The dove went and returned, But there was not resting place and she returned... Then I sent forth a raven and let her go. The raven flew away, and she beheld the easing of the waters. And she ate, wading and croaking, but did not return." >From the book: "Steve Allen on the Bible, Religion, & Morality" page 152. "Concerning the obvious borrowing of the story of the deluge from another more ancient Babylonian document called "Gilgamesh" (the name of its leading character), even a scholarly professor of Sacred Scripture, Georges Auzon, is reduced to a reference to understanding 'the way in which a tradition and a Babylonian document were reused by the writers of Israel'". Ibid., page 124 > From: Mark Smith[SMTP:windsurf@mindspring.com] > SNIP > Certainly the material in Genesis is much older than when it was > codified, though this may well have been after the Babylonian exile. > Funny that it reflects the Babylonian myths so close. Don't you find this even a little curious? > Is your thinking too narrow to > recognize that Adam and Eve may be representations of the first humans > with God-consciousness? > Uh.....now I have read Genesis many times Mark, and this is just a little too much. To say that the Garden of Eden story is really an allegory about two Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons who first conceived the idea of god, is just a stretching things to the point of ridiculousness. It is a "creation" myth, not a "God-consciousness" myth. In other words, it is a myth about how things, like the earth, the sky (firment), animals and people came into being. I like to think that I have an open mind. But it is not so open that my brains fall out. > > Ron, you sound like the fundys! I don't think these folks are the threat > to > life as we know it that you suppose. They are clearly misguided in some > of > their conclusions but, with the exception of Kansas, have evoked no > substantial changes in science curricula throughout the country. > That is because they have been fought tooth and nail by people who sound just like me. Have you not heard of "Edwards v. Aguillard", Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment" law, which was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987. Or how about Epperson v. Arkansas which contested Arkansas's 1929 law that prohibited evolution in schools. That was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968. That lead to a law requiring equal time for creationism. This was overturned by a U.S. District court in 1982, (McLean v. Arkansas). Then there is the case of Ventura County, California. They packed the school board with "stealth" candidates whom all turned out to be creationists. It takes continuous vigilance to keep these true believers from completely shutting off the light of science and returning us to the dark ages. > What one knows is entirely relevant to this discussion. The "Scientific > Method" is all about "knowing." > Not exactly Mark. "The scientific method is a "method of investigation." The scientific method may eventually lead to knowledge however. "The scientific method generally involves forming a hypothesis based on the data or facts of observation, which hypothesis is then tested through experiments; a hypothesis that passed all tests becomes a generally accepted theory, which in turn may pass such rigorous further tests as to be considered scientific law." Ecker, 1990 page 170. > But many would argue that there are other > ways of "knowing". > EXACTLY! That is what the debate is all about. Is blind faith a way of knowing? This is really a debate about "Reason" v. "Faith". What can one know by simply stating "God said it, I believe it and that settles it"? Contrast that to the scientific method described above. > I agree that when you are under the illusion of having a monopoly on > truth you become most vulnerable to attack. A good dose of humbleness > would be helpful on both sides. ---MS > How about a good dose of the scientific method. Ron Patterson