today i thought of a way to present the claim, admittedly inconclusive, yet still MORE LIKELY, that can defend the book genesis from some issues. challenges.
when we read the book of genesis we often ASSUME that the book and the word "the earth" in first verse refers to "our planet named Earth" despite the spelling LOWER CASE not the name of the planet only dirt. the context seems to refer to the "exposing/surfacing" of the land/dirt=earth described on the third day as the beginning, meaning the first THREE three days are called the "beginning" of the week of creation.
this assumption causes our prejudice to try and match the story to our planet... and to interpret the bible based on those PRECONCEPTIONS the way evil moshe rambam corrupted many verses based on his preconception that God has no body... claiming as his basis a verse that never specified that god lacked a body but simply trying to bend toward his muslim neighbors in egypt... that is corruption. we must be different.
however, what if we remove the prejudice? those "challenges" transform into HINTS that the book refers to a DIFFERENT planet.
for example we know the order by digging of life on this planet as geology published first fish and later trees. as childrne we are INJECTED with the idea that genesis is good and true and accurate and most kids even swallow and believe the order of that book and never even NOTICE that the order in geology differs. the simple conclusion is GOD knew the correct order therefore either "geology is false" reject the science books or the book of genesis and ts authors were SEPARATE from the God who knew the correct order.
today i offer a new solution as a MORE LIKELY possibility to defend genesis as true, despite my personal faith that the authors were seperate from god and that book genesis is separate from god and therefore we must nnot MIX genesis with the holy books in the bible the way we should not inject pagan christmas into christianity using the veil of "jesus birth" similarly it would make the bible filthy to mix the lie and misleading contents of book genesis among the holy prophecys for example jeremia and isaiah. despite my personal faith i still offer middle ground as a possible defense.
for the purpose of harmony.
we know the order of life on our planet and we see the bible order differs even SPECIFYING day numbers... the third day treee before the fifth day fish yet we know tree were after fish... leading several rabbis to tell me "the truth is geology is correct but the bible is ALSO true because the fifth day was before the third day".... a healthy ming will not be fooled by such rabbis. they admit the contents in the bible are misleading and ignore the content of day numbers.
instead of rejecting geology as sheldon in the series big bang theory, i offer middle ground.
the different order is a HINT that the book is describing a different planet on which the first human was made from dirt... will that is hard to believe... God could make a human from dirt or from a dnosaur or from water or from nothing but are any of those "likely"??
god himself never said aany prophecy "god spake unto moses i created man from the dirt" and the rabbis teach not to accept this and many other details in genesis despite ALSO claiming it is the foundation of their faith so a healthy mind and logic prevets belieing both.
anyway the order is a hint that it refers to a different planet, simply REMOVE the assumption this it describes our planet and no conflict instead a hint that the book tells the correct story of a different plamnet where there trees were before fish in contrast to this palnet where the first trees were after fish. admittedly one hint alone would only be a hint and better to reject the book of genesis as above however cobined with other hints....
the STRONGEST hint is the story of "four rivers", admittedly jewish scholars published a very gentle criticism that the story of the four rivers is "less than accurate" too gentle... but that is only assuming that the story refers to our planet !! remove that assumption and prejudice... and the problem transforms into a hint that the book is describing a DIFFERENT planet where one river DID branch into four rivers all from same source and the names... of river on our planet are the same as those four rivers while we all see that the those four names do not have one river as a source but as books and maps and josephus preserve the four rivers with those name are not from one source river but we know some flow southward from a northern source the same name as euphrates and tigris flow southward from a north mountain, in contrast to the other two probably the blue nile in ethiopia and the white nile from lake victoria that attach into the nile near city khartoum.
the same names are for four rivers if we assume the same planet then as the bible scholars criticise the content is "less than accurate" but if we remove the prejudice... stop assukmng it is the SAME planet then ths problem transforms into a hint a strong hint that these four names are not the same four rivers... instead EIGHT rivers the four on that planet branch from one and our planet mimicd the names for four different rivers on our planet. again this alonse despite being a strong hint describing rivers is only a hint but this strong hint combined with the order describe a different planet and there the descriptionn of rivers was true describing that second other planet not describing our planet where those four names refer to rivers with separate sources two flowing northward from distant sources and as above two flowing southward. in contrast to the description in genesis describing different rivers with same name or our names mimic the names in the story about the other rivers.
combined with the hint of the order and the long lives hundreds of years even enoch lived over 300 years and other other slonger and even after the flood noah pronounced "naw-ay" as preserved in greek letters lived 300 years after the flood that would be "surprising" on our planet maybe "unbelievable" even after the flood and other s also lived hundreds of years after the flood... long life is only surprising if we ASSUME it describes OUR planet where lives are short.
even the claims of the apologist of the "ice dome" do not help for hundreds of year life after the flood, despite matching the idea of the hebrew word "rko" still even after the flood when the ice dome "meletd down" still noah aand others lived hundreds of years but if we CANCEL our preconception that it describes our planet then instead of unbeleivable fantasy we have another hint... and combined with the strong hint describing the planet of four rivers those rivers were on a planet with four rivers that TRULY DID branch from one and their life dffered from our planet.
abraham traveld from ur... the same name as a place in mesopotamia but based on these hints TOGETHER we have a basis that more likely than "wrongly describing" our planet the book referd to a different planet and abrams TRAVEL was not on land... but inter-planetary
!!
this seems fantasy too... yet based on the hints it is MORE LIKELY that the book described a different panet and the source of abram was different the water flood deluge was there the long lives and four rivers were there but when he arrived on this planet the "third rock from the sun" the names were mimicd for major rivers on our planet those that the book was not describing but other rivers on a different palnet.
the land of canan was occupied by locals who he interacted with perhaps the early humans that evolved on this planet, not from "dirt" as the bible describes but evolving as we know and observed from skeletons... and abram came and interacted with them and PURCHASED Land paying for it. then on this planet abrams descendants lived shorter than abram's ancestors due to this planet being different... yet still longer than the natives due to his genetic source of longevity. the number of years between abram and solomon would still be a problem... but het we can claim that abram traveld from ur meaning the planet that genesis described the one where the FOUR RIVERS did branch from one that planet had the long life due to its difference in characteristics and the content was true about that planet and the rivers there and from there abram came to this planet an unknown number of year before king solomon and those problems of longevity both after noah and before noah are hints that the book was describing a diffferent planet with diffferent rivers as above. so based on all these hints abraham was an alien from the planet that the bible book genesis described not our planet where the rivers, those with the same name differ from the biblical description.
nuf for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment