Monday, August 6, 2007

My eyes are lying

I could hardly believe my eyes. I was looking for a time line of the Book of Genesis when I found this article:

The 'Genesis' Creation Account

This is either a BBC spoof site or BBC is actually agreeing with the Genesis account.


Some great quotes here:

"...Genesis is not anything like hymns, myths or sagas."

"Genesis has many similarities with other creation accounts from the same geological area, such as Sumerian, Egyptian and Babylonian myths. The question is, which one of these is the first? There seems to be a consensus between these stories that the universe was created by God. Then, as it was written down, different accounts emerged. Genesis, though, is unique because it has none of the mythical elements of the other stories, and is therefore more trustworthy."

"Today, many scientists are confirming things said in Genesis."

"Some scientists cite the self-generating universe theory, which is an illogical contradiction."

"The Genesis document, in addition to being the most widely accepted Creationist account, is the most verifiable Creationist account."

It was written in 2002 and is amazing. I suggest reading the whole article.

There is nothing like a level-headed Christian. People notice logic and reasoning, look at how they say because Genesis is "unique because it has none of the mythical elements of the other stories" and is therefore the most reliable.

I hate mysticism, I always have. Mysticism and Charismaticism were the reasons why I never really committed myself to God. When I found people who were Christians and logical, I wanted to be in their camp. Now, praise to God, I am.


Mike the Tike said...

Nice link. I wouldn't go as far as to attribute this article to the BBC. The article was written by Josh the Genius, who at the time of writing was a 17 year old in high school. It would have also been nice if the article was not written by a Christian. Still it looks well researched and is a great article.

Mike the Tike said...

It's definitely worth getting stuck into the Wikipedia entry on The Epic of Gilgamesh.

As it always happens when browsing Wikipedia, you end up in a completely different place. Have a look at the Documentary hypothesis for an interesting theory on the assembly of the Torah.

Qjay said...

I saw the author and was a little surprised myself. I never realised he was 17, I suppose we shouldn't despise him because of his youth...

But there are a number of dampening thoughts here:
1. This kid is writing not from an entirely objective viewpoint (he was a Christian when he wrote it)
2. It clearly (now I see it) is not a BBC article. It is a personal space provided by BBC.

Oh well. I think I could be good friends with him anyway.

"To err is human, really mess things up it takes a computer"

Qjay said...

I would really like to know how on earth I missed:

"Note: this Entry is part of a series of Entries on Evolution and Creationism, and is not intended to be read in isolation."

at the top. [EMBARRASSED FACE]

Qjay said...

Mike - good to hear from you dude.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is interesting - I am currently working on the time line provided by the bible. I first need a reference point with the dates (I have only finished Genesis now) but I think the earliest it could be would be somewhere after Genesis 10:8, about 2000 years after creation.

We do not know if Moses wrote the books of the law, just like we do not know who wrote Hebrews. Only when the book tells us of the author do we know who authored it. We don't even know when certain books where written, like Job. "The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church: A Testimony to the Priority of Matthew's Gospel" is a Christian viewpoint on the document hypothesis. [DIRECT PDF LINK]

Just because Moses may have not written it does not affect the foundation of the bible itself. I believe God should get the glory for it, not Moses. We have to keep in mind that these books were put together to make the bible. It is not some magical fax from God, but it is His word.