(Ron) On the use of "begat"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Jeff Epler wrote:


> On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 09:53:02AM -0700, bridean wrote:

> > BRIDEAN

> > What I would say is that even if "day" in Genesis can be interpreted as

> > "millions of years" or whatever, the order in which things were created

> > contradicts current scientific understanding.

>

> JEFF

> I have a french book that claims that the Genesis account is perfectly

> in accordance with science, and that where it isn't, science is wrong.

> (And goes from there to convince you, in the last dozen pages, that

> fundamentalist christianity is correct!)

>

> So, umm, are you convinced then that the Genesis account is true and

> accurate?  I sure hope so!


BRIDEAN
I don't think it is true and accurate in the scientific sense.  But then again
it wasn't meant to be.  I heard that Genesis was actually meant to be a
propaganda tool to argue against the Babylon religion of the time.
Apparently, the Babylonian religion had a different god that represented
each day of the week.  So the Hebrews wrote a book saying that for each
of those days God created the (whatever).  For example, on the day that the
Babylonians dedicated to the Sun god, Genesis responds by saying that God
"created" the sun on that day.

• Previous message: (Ron) On the use of "begat"
• Next message: On the use of "begat"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]