Re: Doctrine of Creation (Genesis 1)

[Kaplok Kaplok]

This piece is created as a response to Origins: The Doctrine of The Creation (Genesis 1:1)
Fair warning: if you have opposing belief, you are welcome to read and comment in your criticsm to this post. BUT I do not recommend reading this if your faith is a source of your happiness. This piece might trigger you.

GENESIS IS PLATO REPACKAGED​

Genesis, despite the advancements in archeology, has remained mystery, regarding its true source as to who wrote it, when it was written and where was the writer from. This is why there are still people who believe it literally, the fundamental Christians, and would rather form accuse conspiracies to modern scientific discoveries.

Russell Gmirkin argues that the reason we have not found any good evidence is because we assumed that the Bible is of an Eastern background. Gmirkin proposes we look at the Greek text and literature and we would find more evidence here.

PLATO​

Plato is one of the most well-known philosopher. Philosophy in his time is a body of knowledge which is an amalgam of science, math, theology, politics and literature.

Gmirkin argues that Genesis, along with Pentateuch was actually written and was highly inspired by Plato's work. It's narratives does not belong to the creation myths in the ancient near east. It is physics and sciences, wrapped in the a veil of myth. These ideas used by the narrative was actually based on the "scientific" theories - or cosmogenies - proposed by Plato in his work Timeaus, and other philosophers in his time. Although Plato himself disagrees on some of the theories, It proves that the writer(s) of Genesis is actually well-versed in the cosmogenies of the era, and may even be Platonists in belief, putting Genesis no earlier than the 3rd century BC.

Let us look at the conceptually inspired creation accounts in Genesis, and what ideas they were based on.

---

FIRST DAY​

God said, “Let there be…” — Xenophanes: a supreme being set all things into motion by thoughts of his mind alone.

The best parallel is perhaps provided by the natural philosopher Xenophanes, who held that the omnipotent supreme being effortlessly set all things into motion by the thoughts of his mind alone (Simplicius, Physics 23.11, 20; Sextus Empiricus, Against the Mathematicians 9.144; cf. Jaeger 1936: 45; Flannery 2010: 84)

God saw the light was good — Plato: God was good and creating the cosmos in his perfect image

He was good, and in him that is good no envy ariseth ever concerning anything; and being devoid of envy He desired that all should be, so far as possible, like unto Himself. (29e)

He fashioned the All, that so the work He was executing might be of its nature most fair and most good. (30b)

God separated the light from the darkness — Empêdocles; Hesiod and Plato – cosmos was formed by separating its primary elements

From Chaos were born Erebos [Darkness] and black Nyx [Night];
from Nyx were born Aither and Hemera [Day]

Light appears before the sun is formed — Empèdocles’ theory of aether; Zeno; also Hesiod and Plato

The four elements together constitute unqualified substance or matter. Fire is the hot element, water the moist, air the cold, earth the dry. . . . Fire has the uppermost place ; it is also called aether, and in it the sphere of the fixed stars is first created ; then comes the sphere of the planets, next to that the air, then the water, and lowest of all the earth, which is at the centre of all things. (Diogenes Laertius, explaining the theory of Empêdocles.)

God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night” — Plato: the importance of names

Evening and morning were the first day — Plato: God’s first act of creation was time (days and nights and other means for measuring time)

For simultaneously with the construction of the Heaven He contrived the production of days and nights and months and years, which existed not before the Heaven came into being. And these are all portions of Time; even as “Was” and “Shall be” are generated forms of Time (Timaeus 37e)

...to be continued..

[Part 1]
Part 2
Part 3

 

[BladimirNitpu]

The Old Testament preceded Plato lol.
Historians believe that the Jewish scriptures was written and compiled between 3000 to 1000 BC.
and do you mean Eastern Background = Eastern Religions? (Hinduism, Buddhism???).

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

The Old Testament preceded Plato lol.
Historians believe that the Jewish scriptures was written and compiled between 3000 to 1000 BC.
and do you mean Eastern Background = Eastern Religions? (Hinduism, Buddhism???).

Keyword is "historians believe".. as you know it is possible to be misled by belief, if you take it as a fact. There were no conclusive evidence to prove that.

"Near Eastern" was the term used because these data is euro-centric. Near east is a general area between eastern Europe and northwest of Asia.. the place where the texts compiled into "the bible" are originated, to which the first form was written in koine greek.

 

[BladimirNitpu]

Ah ok so Greece, Turkey and Mesopotamia pala sorry

But the Jews and their monotheistic religion are recorded on other civilizations way before Plato was even born, I assume Genesis as a book was already formulated as their book of origin story as an ethnic group during those times.

The New Testament was written in Hebrew and Koine Greek but Genesis is from the Old Testament which is originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

But the Jews and their monotheistic religion are recorded on other civilizations way before Plato was even born, I assume Genesis as a book was already formulated as their book of origin story as an ethnic group during those times.

Actually, the oldest written text of the OT is younger than Plato (408 BCE)

There is no doubt that Jews have existing traditions (which is distinct from the other cultures in the same time and places.. ) but mostly are oral tradition. From 400 BC to the compilation of the bible is a span of 450 years at least. Conceptualize that. There is no doubt that one can influence the other. Much more when we get to Deuteronomy, the evidence gets more compelling.

Not to mention, a lot of the forefathers of christainity were platonics in philosophy.

Of course people will argue that Plato was influence by Moses.. that is IF Moses existed... because maybe the Moses we know of could have been a Platonists rendition of a similar character from older traditions, but now with Plato's teaching infused to the character.

 

[BladimirNitpu]

Ok, so the Early Christians were platonic.
But you can literally go to a synagogue, cross-check with a Jew about the semantics of OT and they would somewhat match, the OT preceded the Early Christians of course. Unlike Islam that literally re-written and changed the OT and NT's content.

I mean what is the point of matching Platonic Ideas with Judeo-Christian texts, what are you trying to get across the audience, whats the point of this thread? I mean I don't think Plato would be happy associating his ideas with Abrahamic religions which is, let's be frank, inherently violent, imperialistic and backwards.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

I mean what is the point of matching Platonic Ideas with Judeo-Christian texts, what are you trying to get across the audience, whats the point of this thread? I mean I don't think Plato would be happy associating his ideas with Abrahamic religions which is, let's be frank, inherently violent, imperialistic and backwards.

It is really up to the reader what they will make out of this. I really intend to leave that open. But here is what I think personally:

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

And yep, plato might appreciate the fans, but will probably be disappointed on how his philosophy was morphed, and (mind you) was used without proper credit.