Brick and wood early, wheat and ore late.
Going all in on sheep with a sheep port is shooting the moon, and less reliable.
Going all in on sheep with a sheep port is shooting the moon, and less reliable.
Coming back to the topic at hand, :) It's not surprising how few Christians are aware of the influence of ancient near east literature on the formation of the creation story in Genesis. Pastors and theologians at more conservative and fundamentalist seminaries usually deny, ignore, or try to hide this from lay Christians in fear that they will leave the faith. This fear is actually probably a projection of their own fears, as I don't see this as some sort of evidence bomb that the Bible isn't "true", whatever that word means. It's totally expected that the ancient Israelites would be affected by the ANE literature of their time, and says of the author(s) of Genesis that they were using the stories that they know, and subverting them to tell their own (non-scientific) origin story of Yahweh and the Israelites.
it undermines a fundamentalist or literalist reading of the bible. once you leave the realm of 'all of this happened exactly this way and god said exactly this', and enter the realm of 'well, this is figurative/you have to understand the historical context this draws from', things suddenly become much, much more nebulous and less authoritative. it's not that it entirely undermines any notion of 'truth' in the bible, but it's anathema to a particular worldview.
The part that always weirds me out is right at the start, when God/Elohim/whatever says let us create them in our image, male and female he created them, which makes very little sense with a singular God.
HN apparently does not support unicode: https://imgur.com/a/Px2z5