Genesis 1.1 - Cosmology

http://www.drdavidneiman.com: In this introduction to Dr. David Neiman's first lecture on the book of Genesis, Dr. Neiman addresses the issues of what sets man apart. This series of lectures will analyze the book of Genesis from a critical historical perspective.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• bible
• study
• genesis
• brain
• man
• universe
• god
• dr.
• david
• neiman
• cosmology
• evolution
• education
• torah
• humanities

[malignantpoodle]

"the author of genesis was fighting against other cosmological views"

Like what? Back then, the overwhelming consensus was that the Earth didn't move, was flat, and eternal.

[DrDavidNeiman]

Then how did Eratosthenes measure the circumference of the earth in 240 BC?

[DrDavidNeiman]

Dr. Neiman considered the bible to be a credible historical document. He was devoted to the concept of "faith and reason". It is unfortunate that many dismiss this great work of literature before really analyzing its content.

[Naiant]

So many errors of fact, begining with his using "cosmologh" when he means "cosmogony." The belief that we only use a certain amount of our brain is false. The Tree wasn't one that provided intelligence, but the knowledge of good and evil. I stopped at that point, so there may be more. I just didn't want to waste any more time.

[Omnitrix12]

@jggrow And you are correct that there was not a canonized Scripture; that was still under construction, and facing a substantial threat from false apostles and counterfeit letters (both of which are mentioned or alluded to in the Old Testament). Later when the scriptures were canonized, a key factor in determining which books were legit was which ones people had been willing to die for. As for not finding much "fact," who would I turn to if not someone who firmly believes lying is a sin?

[Omnitrix12]

@jggrow As for the day of the crucifixion, wherein do you find this alleged contradiction? And if there were any confusion of it back then, how did the Pharisees not dispel the resurrection as myth right from the get-go? They certainly had enough reason to jump at any chance, real or ficticious.

[Omnitrix12]

@jggrow You are mistaken in assuming that Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. There are two equally reasonable assumptions: One being that Genesis 2 relates a sort of mini-creation enacted by God so Adam could see it firtshand, and the other being that writers do not automatically relate every single event in chronological order (unless they are numbered, asin Genesis 1). So God's creation of Eden could have pre-dated Adam's arrival there.

[jggrow]

Just one other point: Have either you or any of the rest of the religionists represented here ever compared Gen 1 to Gen 2? Or the 4 gospels of the new testiment, which can't even seem to agree on the penultimate event--the day when this "crucifiction" is supposed to have happened? I mean, that's a pretty significant "fact," upon which jesus-followers (eye-witnesses or nearly), back in the day ought not to have had any confusion at all, don't you think? Or do you think at all?

[jggrow]

@Omnitrix12 Not exactly again. In the 1st Centrury there was no christian church, bible, organizational structure; except for Paul (apparently a lot of places), and James in Jerusalem. You might want to refer to Gibbons. I doubt you'll find very much "fact" out of your christian organizations today. Organized religious-companies seem to be committed to the bottom line, and thrive on hearsay, fear and myth. For the life of me, I can't understand why they aren't taxed like they should be.

[Omnitrix12]

@jggrow Besides, if the Bible were such as you suggest, why does it contain so many un-flattering descriptions of the people chosen by God for great things?

[Omnitrix12]

@jggrow On the contrary. In the first century AD especially, there was rampant persecution of, as you put it, the "current version of the Bible." For a hundred years and then some, you could be killed just for owning a copy of the book of Romans or Acts. And in more recent history, William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into essentially the book we now know today. The Bible is not, and never was, a mere product of "winners writing history."

[jggrow]

@Omnitrix12 Ummmm. Not strictly, historically true. Yes, many books of the bible were attacked (rabidly), criticized and vehemently outlawed, probably especially the new testiment books--BUT all the attacking and outlawing (and destroying) was by proponents of the current version of the book. Maybe the old testiment received similar treatment, who knows. The current version won out, even though the total destruction of other texts was not complete. The winners always write history.

[jggrow]

@DrDavidNeiman Exactly!