Would this disprove the Creation Account ?

[Eddy_P]

Here is the King James version of Genesis Chapter 1

Text removed. See text via link if you must:
www.kingjamesbible.com/B01C001.htm

Many religious people accept this as a true account of what happened in 4004 BCE.

It is my opinion that, if someone was to show from where this series of described imagery actually originated, then it would either confirm that GOD did in fact do what the text said, or not.

If not, then the investigation would show that the newly discovered SOURCE of that text was the cause of that text being written, and hence, this would disprove the religious version of it being an account of a religious god ‘creating’ everything.

To put this in context.
a.
Consider the Egyptian ‘Great Ennead of Gods’ of Heliopolis creation story.
It describes a sequence of ‘gods’.

Shu, Tefenet, Nut, Geb, Osiris, Isis, Nephthys, Horus, and Seth

If it could be shown to what this sequence of ‘gods’ refers, then, in my opinion, this would negate the concept that there were actual ‘gods’ as implied by contemporary (and past) religious understanding.

b.
Consider an ancient Akkadian story.
It also describes a sequence of ‘gods’.

Apsu, Tiamat, Anshar, Kishar, Anu, Ea, Quingu

If it could be shown to what this sequence of ‘gods’ refers, then, in my opinion, this would negate the concept that there were actual ‘gods’ as implied by the ancient story.

c.
Consider…all other ancient creation accounts and stories perceived to be about divine gods, God, GOD, son of God, or angels.
If the source of those stories could be found….

So basically, what I am asking your members, is

IF the actual SOURCE of those ancient stories was found not to be what we have been told, would this prove that GOD, God, and gods were not divine in nature and hence the Creation Story is a myth as it was a misunderstanding of what was actually being described or related ?

[Pebble]

The creation story as described is a myth, allowing for poetic licence of what is being described it is still almost certainly a myth. God as a divine supernatural creator is almost certainly a myth, god as described in the bible is a myth.
None of these statements are fully interdependent - so one cannot readily be deduced from investigation of the other.

[Eddy_P]

To put it another way.

What I am trying to say is, that using the same “evidence’ as religious people do (ie. their source of Genesis chapter 1) for the Creation, IF that “evidence” (ie. the words in the story) can be shown to be actually describing something else that is tangible, then would this be proof that they have ‘got it wrong’ and thus show that the Creation Story (as accepted by religious people) is NOT what Genesis chapter 1 is reporting.

[Pebble]

Can't quite follow the logic here. For the Fundys - the only incontrovertable source is the bible, its internal contradictions are excused on the basis that gods' works are beyond man's comprehension.
So if no external evidence can be brought to bear and internal inconsistencies are dismissed, I fail to see how any room for rational discourse is left.

[Eddy_P]

So if no external evidence can be brought to bear and internal inconsistencies are dismissed, I fail to see how any room for rational discourse is left.

But it is that external evidence to which I refer - while still using their cited source (being the words from Genesis chapter 1).

If by going word by word through their “evidence”, and showing that each word refers to something tangible which is not related to god and ‘the creation’, would this not show that the source and origin of the account in Genesis is about something else ?

Thus ‘god’ and ‘the creation’ would be proven an incorrect interpretation of Genesis chapter 1.

[Pebble]

You will need to expand a little on what precisely you mean, to help me understand.

To paraphrase:

..and God said 'let there be light' and there was light, god saw the light and saw that it was good.

Now I might say this refers to something tangible - solar activity - but a Fundy would simply assert that that is precisely what is being referred to in the bible.

[skbuncks]

Here is the King James version of Genesis Chapter 1 Many religious people accept this as a true account of what happened in 4004 BCE.

It is my opinion that, if someone was to show from where this series of described imagery actually originated, then it would either confirm that GOD did in fact do what the text said, or not.

If memory serves me right it has already been shown where the Genesis creation account originates (although there is some contention on the issue).

Enuma Elish
...and the obligatory wiki link

Indeed many of the old testament stories have routes in older Mesopotamian myths, see for instance the parallels between Ludlul Bel Nimeqi, Tabu-utul-Bel and the Book of Job

If not, then the investigation would show that the newly discovered SOURCE of that text was the cause of that text being written, and hence, this would disprove the religious version of it being an account of a religious god ‘creating’ everything.

To put this in context.
a.
Consider the Egyptian ‘Great Ennead of Gods’ of Heliopolis creation story.
It describes a sequence of ‘gods’. If it could be shown to what this sequence of ‘gods’ refers, then, in my opinion, this would negate the concept that there were actual ‘gods’ as implied by contemporary (and past) religious understanding.

b.
Consider an ancient Akkadian story.
It also describes a sequence of ‘gods’. If it could be shown to what this sequence of ‘gods’ refers, then, in my opinion, this would negate the concept that there were actual ‘gods’ as implied by the ancient story.

c.
Consider…all other ancient creation accounts and stories perceived to be about divine gods, God, GOD, son of God, or angels.
If the source of those stories could be found….

So basically, what I am asking your members, is

IF the actual SOURCE of those ancient stories was found not to be what we have been told, would this prove that GOD, God, and gods were not divine in nature and hence the Creation Story is a myth as it was a misunderstanding of what was actually being described or related ?

This is really quite irrelevant, as pointed out by Pebble, if the OT is taken as the inerrant word of God then by definition it IS right. Pointing out that the content can be shown to be derived from older myths can be easily dismissed by those with faith.
All that is of course besides the point as proving that the OT is wrong does not disprove the existence of God, it simply proves the OT is wrong.

skb

[chaggle]

So basically Eddy-p is posing totally unanswerable hypothetical questions which, even if they could be answered, wouldn't demonstrate what he is proposing they would demonstrate.

Doesn't seem a very worthwhile activity to me.

[Eddy_P]

You will need to expand a little on what precisely you mean, to help me understand.
To paraphrase:
..and God said 'let there be light' and there was light, god saw the light and saw that it was good.

Now I might say this refers to something tangible - solar activity - but a Fundy would simply assert that that is precisely what is being referred to in the bible.

Probably true, for one sentence.
But this is not exactly what I mean.

Also, they would be using the English translation of the words, and not the original Hebrew meanings.
So first up, on that count alone, they have got it wrong for many of the words.

The words, when put back to their original Hebrew meanings, relate a different story to that told to us via the English translation.
It is this original ‘story’ that relates to tangible proof.

For example:
From Genesis 1:1 we read 'God, plus heaven and earth' created.
But from the Hebrew Lexicon in Strong's Concordance we find that the word "God" actually means 'gods in the ordinary sense'; heaven = sky; and earth = partitively 'a land'.

Also, when a Hebrew interlinear text is consulted, we find that the word order has been rearranged, thus also changing the context and meaning.
Genesis 1:1 original word order…
in·beginning…created…God…»…the·heavens… and·»…the·earth

Returning the original word meanings gives
In the beginning created gods, the sky, and the earth.

A specific sequence of images is described by the rest of the chapter when the original word meanings are used for all the other words.

That sequence of original descriptions can now be compared to something tangible.

If it all matches to the new tangible source, then what we have been told by the contemporary religious translation is NOT correct.

I hope this makes it clearer.

[skbuncks]

...I hope this makes it clearer.

Not particularly. Lets put that to one side for the time being however and concentrate on this...

Many religious people accept this (the Genesis account) as a true account of what happened in 4004 BCE.

It is my opinion that, if someone was to show from where this series of described imagery actually originated, then it would either confirm that GOD did in fact do what the text said, or not.

...which is wrong.

And this...

If not, then the investigation would show that the newly discovered SOURCE of that text was the cause of that text being written, and hence, this would disprove the religious version of it being an account of a religious god ‘creating’ everything.

..which is also wrong. Your whole post kind of then falls apart. Similarly with the other threads you have started.
I suggest you take a long look at it and try and work out why your premise is flawed.

skb

[Croydon Bob]

Also, they would be using the English translation of the words, and not the original Hebrew meanings.
So first up, on that count alone, they have got it wrong for many of the words.

The words, when put back to their original Hebrew meanings, relate a different story to that told to us via the English translation.
It is this original ‘story’ that relates to tangible proof.

For example:
From Genesis 1:1 we read 'God, plus heaven and earth' created.
But from the Hebrew Lexicon in Strong's Concordance we find that the word "God" actually means 'gods in the ordinary sense'; heaven = sky; and earth = partitively 'a land'.

Also, when a Hebrew interlinear text is consulted, we find that the word order has been rearranged, thus also changing the context and meaning.
Genesis 1:1 original word order…
in·beginning…created…God…»…the·heavens… and·»…the·earth

Returning the original word meanings gives
In the beginning created gods, the sky, and the earth.

A specific sequence of images is described by the rest of the chapter when the original word meanings are used for all the other words.

That sequence of original descriptions can now be compared to something tangible.

If it all matches to the new tangible source, then what we have been told by the contemporary religious translation is NOT correct.

You need to remember that many Protestant fundies consider the King James Bible to be the only true word of God version of the Bible. Earlier versions don't matter to them, translation errors weren't errors at all to them, the earlier version was wrong, the KJ version is correct.

Faced with that kind of thinking, identifying the sources that the Old Testament stole from is not going to change their minds. It's all part of their mysterious god's methods.

[Pebble]

If it all matches to the new tangible source, then what we have been told by the contemporary religious translation is NOT correct.

I hope this makes it clearer.

OK now I see where you are coming from. The issue I think would be that the original hebrew texts are only available through the Thalmud. The original versions of the christian bible that are accessible are I believe in Greek.

So for your thesis to follow, christians would have to accept that the jewish version of the old testament is the correct one and that all later christian revisions were mistakes rahter than divinely inspired, or that the thalmud has been incorrectly translated over the millinea.

Having accepted this revision, one then naturally gets to other older myths as skbuncks has pointed out, so then we get to Bobs point - all too difficult just reject.

[Eddy_P]

You need to remember that many Protestant fundies consider the King James Bible to be the only true word of God version of the Bible. Earlier versions don't matter to them, translation errors weren't errors at all to them, the earlier version was wrong, the KJ version is correct.

Faced with that kind of thinking, identifying the sources that the Old Testament stole from is not going to change their minds. It's all part of their mysterious god's methods.

Agreed.

But the source (ie. Bible stories) that keeps perpetuating their religious delusions has been found to be describing something else tangible that is NOT of divine origin.

So, atheists now have the true source of those ancient stories to physically show them, even if they then chose to continue to ignore the proof which they will be able to hold and evaluate in their own hands.

So apparently, the evidence will be for the rest of us. This will enable those who wish to know exactly from where the ancient stories originated to fully investigate these matters for themselves.

So for your thesis to follow, christians would have to accept that the jewish version of the old testament is the correct one and that all later christian revisions were mistakes rahter than divinely inspired, or that the thalmud has been incorrectly translated over the millinea.

Having accepted this revision, one then naturally gets to other older myths as skbuncks has pointed out, so then we get to Bobs point - all too difficult just reject.

But Strong’s Concordance is based upon their King James version.
It is this reference that contains the original Hebrew meanings, and not necessarily the original Thalmud, (as the prophets themselves did not know what they were being shown and told.)

I thought that using their version of the Bible and their study guide for that Bible may make the difference.
I have had debates with religious people regarding this issue, and they immediately grab their KJ Bible and Strong’s Concordance to show where I am wrong - only to go all red faced when they see that what they have been told was actually wrong.
But you are right, they still ignore what their books say even when it clearly shows where the KJV is wrong.
So far, seven people that I have confronted with this have not returned to debate it further.

As to the ‘changes’ made to the Bible’s words which they ignore - religious history books show ‘who’ decided to make a new religion and ‘why’ and ‘what’ they changed to push their own point of view.

But as you say, this does seem to matter to them either.

[tolman]

So apparently, the evidence will be for the rest of us. This will enable those who wish to know exactly from where the ancient stories originated to fully investigate these matters for themselves.

But what is there likely to be to investigate?
If more historical information comes in, fair enough, but given the distance back in time of the events, is that information generally likely to lead us to even more information, or is it likely to be the only extra information we get?

It may be interesting to speculate about how much one or other religion's tales may have been based on some historical event, or just invented, but I'd wonder how 'exactly' we could know the origin[s] of any story.

It's possible that the flood story relates to some historic event (such as the filling of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean, etc), but we would seem likely to be only ever guessing as to the actual sources or inspiration for any story - for example, even if it was possible that the Black Sea event had been witnessed by people and the story passed down through the generations, that doesn't stop a biblical flood story arising from the imagination of someone dreaming about rain that never stopped, or making up a bedtime story for a child or a scary tale for round a campfire.

[Pebble]

But Strong’s Concordance is based upon their King James version.
It is this reference that contains the original Hebrew meanings, and not necessarily the original Thalmud, (as the prophets themselves did not know what they were being shown and told.)

Nice idea. Had not come across this before, the problem then arises which 'original version' is correct and even where differences exist in that which is written one can still question the original meaning from the preceding oral tradition rather than just relying on the avialable texts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Bible versions are discussed below, while Bible translations can be found on a separate page.
The original texts of the Tanakh were in Hebrew, although some portions were in Aramaic. In addition to the authoritative Masoretic Text, Jews still refer to the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, and the Targum Onkelos, an Aramaic version of the Bible. There are several different ancient versions of the Tanakh in Hebrew, mostly differing by spelling, and the traditional Jewish version is based on the version known as Aleppo Codex. Even in this version by itself, there are words which are traditionally read differently from written (sometimes one word is written and another is read), because the oral tradition is considered more fundamental than the written one, and presumably mistakes had been made in copying the text over the generations.
The primary biblical text for early Christians was the Septuagint or (LXX). In addition, they translated the Hebrew Bible into several other languages. Translations were made into Syriac, Coptic, Ge'ez and Latin, among other languages. The Latin translations were historically the most important for the Church in the West, while the Greek-speaking East continued to use the Septuagint translations of the Old Testament and had no need to translate the New Testament.
The earliest Latin translation was the Old Latin text, or Vetus Latina, which, from internal evidence, seems to have been made by several authors over a period of time. It was based on the Septuagint, and thus included books not in the Hebrew Bible.
Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin Rite.