ahem 
Zev Steinhardt
I’m sorry, but I am going to disagree with almost all of the above, or at the very least express great confusion as to your meaning. Either God directed the writings in the Bible or he did not. If he is attempting to convey lessons in ways they would understand, why in the world would he introduce concepts beyond their understanding? Is he incapable of dumbing it down for them? Is he limited to just this one shot at communication? Why not feed information to his subjects as one would a child, in kind and quantity sufficient to its understanding?
I am not trying to force a literal interpretation of the Bible, merely trying to discover its source. My objection, such as it was, was to hammerbach’s implication that the writer of Genesis was the source of the material, not God. To me, the assertion that God spoke to man but man was incapable of understanding is an exercise in twisted logic. I would think *by definition * if God desired full understanding from man, it would be so.
Whatever people “get” from god is irrelevant. That has nothing to do with whether or not the whole thing is real. Using that logic, if I really “got” something from my purple donkey then he’d be as real as a god. When I was a little kid, I “got” things from santa claus and really believed he existed. Eventually, I grew out of it.
How does a lack of evidence force me into being an athiest? I’ve already stated several times that my feeble mind cannot comphrehend the nature of the universe and our origins. Guess what, I’ve also not crossed out the possibility of a matrix like simulation that we are living in. There’s no evidence for this, but I’m not gonna sit here and say, no it isn’t possible. Same thing for religion. I see no evidence, but my 99% sure will NOT become 100% sure that there is no god. This is one of the problems I have with the fundies. They are 100% sure.
Also, if the bible is not the word of god, why do people take it so seriously? I mean, if some dude who has less of an understanding of the universe than we do wrote it, what are we wasting our time for? And if god wrote it, then it’s explained that god didn’t really mean days or he was using metaphors. That’s like me defending nostradamus by twisting his quatrains into something that seems more believable. I can take any text and somehow relate it to our lives. Are you going to accept it as truth then? Didn’t think so.
Um, actually, I think there are a couple of folks around here who worship an Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Of course, nobody has ever adequately explained how she can be both invisible and pink.
Why do you restate what I said, then claim that you disagree? 
I realize that there are differences between our statements, but they are pretty close. For one thing, unlike Floyd13, I don’t think God cared a whit about scientific explanations of the formation of the world. (I also think that, unlike a few–rather more in the U.S.–Christians, today, the original audience knew that the descriptions were not scientific or factual history.) God was conveying a message of love and morality, not a description of the mechanisms of the universe.
I would say that he did a pretty good job of getting the message across, using the tools (men with their own free wills rather than automatons) to do just that.
Well atheists sometimes divide atheism into the “strong” and “weak” forms. “Strong atheism” is an explicit belief that no gods exist and “weak atheism” is the lack of belief in all gods.
“I see no evidence” doesn’t imply “there is no evidence”…
Atheists aren’t necessarily 100% sure that there is no god. BTW, are you 100% sure that the Christian God doesn’t exist? If not, then you’d have to revise your earlier assertion that there is “no evidence for religion” since surely there would exist some evidence somewhere if most of the things mentioned in the Bible happened. Or maybe you’re just 99% sure that some gods that didn’t interact with humans and lead to major religions existed.
Not necessarily… I was questioning creationism when I was a creationist and wasn’t certain sure it was true. And Christians sometimes talk about “struggling with their faith” or “questioning their faith”… and their faith could become weaker - their fundy beliefs wouldn’t be any more liberal, they’d just be less certain.
As far as the Matrix goes, yeah it could exist…
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-jewish.html
“The current definition of the Jewish calendar is generally said to have been set down by the Sanhedrin president Hillel II in approximately C.E. 359. The original details of his calendar are, however, uncertain.”
“The Jewish calendar is used for religious purposes by Jews all over the world, and it is the official calendar of Israel.”
“Years are counted since the creation of the world, which is assumed to have taken place in 3761 B.C.E. [this agrees with the creationist date] In that year, AM 1 started (AM = Anno Mundi = year of the world).”
Though the most calendar was most recently updated in 359 CE, it seems like there’s a lot of tradition behind it. The Jewish people who use it today had oral traditions and surely the question about whether early Genesis is meant to be historical or not what have been covered. Of course now, most Jewish people today probably believe in an old earth.
Hillel was not among the original audience.
Beyond that, using some method to fix a calendar may imply, but does not compel, a belief that the origin myth is a scientific rendering.
It’s a story. You may as well ask about how Pinnochio managed such rapid cartilagenous hypertrophy in his nose upon speaking untruths. It may be a fun exercise, but you’re not going to get any “correct” answers, because the events in Genesis, as described, are not factual accounts of the “creation” of the universe. Some moderates may derive meaning from them as allegory or metaphor, but only the literalists consider the Genesis account accurate, and do so only by denying the enormous body of evidence contradicting the Biblical account of Creation. To them, then, explanations that appeal to the laws of physics as we know them, however twisted, are superfluous, as God is not bound by those laws in His actions. It’s a pointless exercise to tease anything more form the issue, because there really isn’t anything more to it.
Anything can be rationalized Floyd13. Let it go.
Yah gotta have faith. No harder to believe in than the Trinity.
From God’s mouth to your ear, huh? How do you know it wasn’t meant as the best guess at a factual explanation? The original audience, in 700 BCE or so, had no concept of science, so they certainly didn’t think of it in terms of not being a scientific explanation. As for it not being a factual one, what alternate theories did they have? The creation myths from the surrounding cultures, yes, but they were no better.
If God really was only giving a message of love and morality (and you seem to be forgetting all the rules in the Torah) he could have bloody well done so, and left out the bogus parts.
You also seem to be neglecting the fundamental importance of the Adam and Eve story to Christianity. Adam and Eve’s since, which caused all to be sinners, came from choice. No Adam and Eve, no choice, and you have a god condemning all to hell (unless you jump through the salvation hoop) from the beginning. That we are sinners because of our ancestors choice makes a certain kind of sense, that we are sinners because god just made us that way is evil. As has been mentioned by the literalists, Jesus thought that Adam and Eve existed and that the Flood happened, after all.