Is Genesis account just a myth?

by AK - Jeff 54 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    There are many stories that make we wonder if anything akin to solid reasoning can prop up the Bible's accounts of early life on earth. But perhaps this scripture is a key:

    "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Genesis 2:5-6)

    The following matters are of concern to me in this matter:

    • I cannot conceive that the rivers could have sprung up without any hydro-cyclic movement of the water masses. Yet the Bible clearly names the primary rivers that ran through the Garden of Eden.
    • Also, is such a thing actually possible, that water mist could continually water the earths' flora and fauna?
    • From was the source from which such a mist emanated? Could the ground be so moist/wet so as to support enough water to continually raise itself to water the earth for what appears to be perhaps a millennium of time?
    • And additionally, since the oceans are salty due to movement of sedimentary mineral through the rivers to the oceans, were the waters of the earth all freshwater according to the Bible at the time of Adam?
    • Has sufficient time passed since the time of the supposed 'first rain', according to the Watchtower chronology [and not varying much from most Christian beliefs], less than 5000 years, to have taken the freshwater oceans to the level of saline that it now contains? The oceans avg 35 ppt [not sure how that corresponds with the PSS scale], and that in only 5K years? If it moves to 100 ppt [one could guess in another 10,000 years perhaps] would they support life? On the other hand, scientists assert that getting the ocean's to the current level of salinity has taken millions of years. If so, then it could be assumed that it would take millions of years additional to 'oversalt' the oceans, and make them unsuitable for life.

    Since the foundation stone of all life is water - this seems to be a key place to begin the discussion.

    Further questions come to mind for me -

    • What was the purpose for which God had elected not to allow a normal hydrology cycle of evaporation and rain/snow?
    • Did He anticipate that man would sin, and he would need to correct it with a flood, and a rainbow to show that he would not correct it in such a manner again?
    • Why did the earth not revert to it's previous 'mist-cycle' following the flood?

    I am no scientist. But it seems that the entire idea as presented in the Bible is amiss somehow.

    Jeff

  • BabaYaga
    BabaYaga

    In answer to your question, the answer is a resounding yes, the Genesis account is just a myth.

    That is not to say that it has no value at all. Myths do serve a purpose, and can sometimes relate concepts very well.

    It is, in fact, much more valuable (and far less destructive) if you DO view it as a myth.

  • Bring_the_Light
    Bring_the_Light

    Way more than a myth. Astonishing lie. God even admits it in Chapter 3. Niice piece of doublethink going on wit dat.

  • Mr. Majestic
    Mr. Majestic

    A little while ago I replied to a post on this topic, and I thought that I would have a go at trying to defend the bibles account of Genesis, fitting it into the past 6000 years. I am embarrassed to say that I never did get back to the person who’s thread it was. I keep meaning to PM him and explain what happened. But I failed to prove anything. I tried to fit things into the account, but the extreme measures were just not reasonable.

    I was disappointed in myself for a while but at the end of the day "you can’t fit a square peg in a round hole". I tried my best mind. I didn’t reply because I started to look into topics that might have helped me to find something that would prove the case. The problem is I am still reading into it. Still nothing that I could use to prove the account of Genesis, more the opposite in fact, but interesting stuff none the less.

    Good luck to anyone who takes on the challenge. I would be interested to hear how others attempt to reconcile geology to Genesis. It would be interesting to see how others have faired…..

  • AK - Jeff
  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff
    I tried to fit things into the account, but the extreme measures were just not reasonable.

    That is what I have found also as I tried to salvage the account or any part of it in my mind.

    Jeff

  • Mr. Majestic
    Mr. Majestic

    Again, I am not a scientist either, but just to put some feed back your way, if you look at the tropical rain forests, they are full of mist a lot of the time, in places a very humid environment. Vegetation growth is quite accelerated in such an environment. Could this be anything like the ‘mist’ as described in the Genesis account….??

    Look at the way that plant life thrives, and all other kinds of life come to that.

    Just a thought….

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Even though they lacked modern scientific insights, I'm sure the redactors of Genesis who chose to juxtapose two wildly contradictory "creation stories" (including a different order, 1. Plants-animals-man and woman vs. 2. Man-plants-animals-woman) were not trying to make up a consistent description of what actually happened.

    The real problem imo lies with our anachronistic misreading of those texts as claiming scientific accuracy, which is definitely not their point.

    Edit: btw the translation of `ed as "mist" is questionable. It might as well describe a source flooding the earth (flat, of course).

  • stillajwexelder
  • moshe
    moshe

    A thousand years from now people will probably think Moby Dick isn't a book of fiction , too.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit