Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 1 of 307 (80021)
01-22-2004 9:06 AM


I was asked the other day, "What do literalists do with Genesis One and Two? In Genesis 1, it's the animals, then man. In Genesis 2, it's man, then the animals. Doesn't that destroy literal interpretations?"
I told him that what I said, when I was a YEC, was that Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe, while Genesis 2 described the creation of the Garden of Eden. He said, "So, God made a whole new set of animals for the garden? That doesn't make much sense."
Has anyone heard any better reconciliations of those two chapters? I didn't argue very hard for mine, because I don't believe it anymore. I think those are two unrelated creation stories, but there are a lot of people who don't. Do they have anything better than the universe/garden explanation?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Dr Jack, posted 01-22-2004 9:20 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 3 by truthlover, posted 01-24-2004 1:46 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 7 by Taqless, posted 02-03-2004 3:55 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 22 by ex libres, posted 02-17-2004 4:55 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 26 by Phat, posted 02-19-2004 7:49 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 69 by TheLiteralist, posted 08-30-2005 4:04 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 73 by renaissance guy, posted 10-13-2005 6:24 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 80 by Carico, posted 12-06-2005 6:30 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 116 by Jman, posted 01-19-2006 8:00 PM truthlover has not replied
 Message 132 by Jman, posted 04-06-2006 3:25 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 303 by dennis780, posted 05-11-2010 8:56 PM truthlover has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 2 of 307 (80026)
01-22-2004 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
01-22-2004 9:06 AM


We were told that the second account does not say the animals were created after man, simply that they were named after man.
A quick check of the text shows that this doesn't actually work.
I guess you could argue that God simply created 'examples' of each animal after man?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 01-22-2004 9:06 AM truthlover has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 3 of 307 (80477)
01-24-2004 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
01-22-2004 9:06 AM


Bump.
Can we really not do better than this? Is there no literalist to provide a more reasonable explanation than us ex-YECer's have come up with?
Listen, our whole church/village is having weekly meetings watching a series of evolution videos and discussing afterwards. There were several holdouts against evolution until just the last couple weeks. It was only last week that someone went into our leader's home and said, "But isn't it possible Genesis one is literal and means six 24-hour days." He was told, "So, you want to be a fundamentalist. That's okay with me. But tell me, which fundamentalist do you want to be? A Genesis one fundamentalist or a Genesis two fundamentalist." He then read Genesis one and two and said, "Wow, I see your point."
So this is a real-life situation to save someone or several someone's from our insidious attack on the literacy of the Scriptures. Our leader insists that no one has a good reconciliation of Genesis one and two. How could they?
You're making it look like he's right.
Oh, by the way. You could maybe pop over to http://EvC Forum: Please explain this clear Bible error. -->EvC Forum: Please explain this clear Bible error. and provide a good answer for that apparent Bible contradiction, and if you can, then whenever I tell anyone in our village about that contradiction, I'll tell them about your answer, too!
Anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 01-22-2004 9:06 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by BobAliceEve, posted 03-14-2004 10:58 AM truthlover has not replied
 Message 153 by simple, posted 05-12-2006 3:41 AM truthlover has not replied

q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 307 (82483)
02-03-2004 3:50 AM


This is a very simple matter. There is no contradiction. God has created the Universe in parallel. There are many examples where more than one thing is simultaneously true. For example, the trinity. Nobody has a problem with that. It is not a contradiction. There are three things true at the same time.
It is also night and day at the same time on different points of the earth. Is this a contradiction? In fact, it is a different date and day of the week. Yet it is the same absolute time. Contradiction? Of course not.
If I send a space ship out to mars and back at the speed of light with a clock on it and also use a clock on earth to see how long it was gone - is there a contradiction? Both clocks are right, aren't they? But they are different.
Is it not true that particles appear out of nowhere in science experiments and yet matter is neither created nor destroyed? Well, this is only an apparent contradiction from our frame of reference.
So therefore how can one fret over such a simple thing as Genesis 1 and 2? If God wants it to be Tuesday on Wednesday or to have light while there is darkness - there is no contradiction in this. For particles or beings to appear and vanish has been observed empirically. God was merely working on a larger scale.
Be advised the son of man will come like a thief in the night with power.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 5:32 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 6 by truthlover, posted 02-03-2004 6:57 AM q3psycho has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 5 of 307 (82498)
02-03-2004 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 3:50 AM


So, what you're saying is that it's a contradiction just like the "twins paradox", the International Date Line, and the Casimir Effect?
The difference between those contradictions and the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2, however, is that those other contradictions have explanations. You've provided none.
If God wants it to be Tuesday on Wednesday or to have light while there is darkness - there is no contradiction in this.
I don't understand why not. Just because he's God, we're supposed to suspend sense? Maybe this is why the Bible turns off a lot of thinking people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 3:50 AM q3psycho has not replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 6 of 307 (82510)
02-03-2004 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 3:50 AM


Yikes! I thought you were joking; just talking tongue-in-cheek. I looked up your other posts, though, and I guess you were serious.
It is also night and day at the same time on different points of the earth. Is this a contradiction?
Well, no, but if I was at a meeting with Joe and Linda, and Joe and Linda said it was night when we had the meeting, and I say it was day, then there is a contradiction. You can't just dismiss any contradiction you want by appealing to the theory of relativity. If that were the case, we might as well close all our criminal courts, because any alibi would be possibly valid.
Well, on the other hand, any alibi could be dismissed, because according to your interpretation of night and day on planet earth and Einstein's theory of relativity, the defendant could have been at school, in class, with his classmates, and out stealing a car--at the same time! There can be no contradiction, because clocks read different times as they travel at varying speeds.
You have to give us some reason to accept your reasoning. What does "God has created the Universe in parallel" mean? It means he created man last and he created man first, and we're supposed to think that's not a contradiction?
I think there's less problems with the world/Eden scenario. At least there God is creating the animals twice and two sets of animals exist, not creating the whole universe twice and only one universe existing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 3:50 AM q3psycho has not replied

Taqless
Member (Idle past 5913 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 7 of 307 (82677)
02-03-2004 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
01-22-2004 9:06 AM


Storytelling Technique
I'm going to step out on some very thin ice here because I have VERY little Bible knowledge. However, a Coptic Orthodox friend of mine explained that the way Genesis 1 and 2 are written actually coincides with Egyptian storytelling techniques (since Moses is the guy who supposedly wrote Genesis this follows....I guess). Where a storyteller begins in a generalized way and then gets detailed. For example, I believe it says something about creating man and woman in his image, BUT it is explained in better detail in the 2nd chapter that God actually created man first in his image, then woman (maybe so we wouldn't think God was female in any way?, lol)...I guess it is supposed to be the same for the rest? Like I said cha-ching...two cents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 01-22-2004 9:06 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by randman, posted 08-30-2005 12:34 AM Taqless has not replied

q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 307 (82781)
02-03-2004 6:41 PM


gentlemen, I thank you for your responses. I still do not see the problem. Is it not suspension of "sense" that particles appear as if by magic? Is it not suspension of "sense" that scientists are now talking about parallel universes?
I think there is a deeper mystery in genesis that we are only now coming to grips with. God can create the world simultaneously in different ways. As with the trinity, they are one and the same and yet different.
I don't think this is suspending sense at all. This is instead the verification that the Bible incorporated advanced science long before man "discovered" it. At the same time genesis is supporting modern science by confirming the principle of parallel realities.
Has it not also occurred to you that God can arrest the spin of the earth or slow the speed of light? A "day" may be a quantity of light. But it could be ten million years. How can we judge what happened before Adam and Eve? Nobody was there to record it.
When methods of ship construction recover the lost technology of Noah's Ark all of you will be pretending it is a "modern" development. All of us will be saying "I told you so"!

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 7:25 PM q3psycho has replied
 Message 58 by randman, posted 08-30-2005 12:33 AM q3psycho has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 307 (82804)
02-03-2004 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 6:41 PM


Your argument appears to be "I'm confused by science, and I'm confused by Genesis 1 and 2, so they must be the same thing."
I have a pointy-haired boss that I'd like to introduce you to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 6:41 PM q3psycho has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 7:47 PM crashfrog has replied

q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 307 (82825)
02-03-2004 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 7:25 PM


I'm not confused. Remember - you need faith. That is what keeps you from being confused. You can always figure out the answer if you have faith.
Like the big bang. The ideas weren't doing so well so they invented this big bang. It covers up all of the problems. But now they can't figure out how to slow it down. But if you have faith they will invent some other thing to stop it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 7:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by truthlover, posted 02-03-2004 10:27 PM q3psycho has replied
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 11:09 PM q3psycho has replied

truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 11 of 307 (82889)
02-03-2004 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 7:47 PM


Has it not also occurred to you that God can arrest the spin of the earth or slow the speed of light? A "day" may be a quantity of light. But it could be ten million years.
A day may be a quantity of light, but it could be ten million years. That's fine, and it was suggested by kabbalists before science proved the world was old. However, it has nothing to do with what was talked about. One, I was referring to literalists, who object to ten million years, and two, no matter how long it took, Genesis One and Two have a different order, so that they can't be taken literally and not contradict. Nothing you've said refutes that.
Like the big bang. The ideas weren't doing so well so they invented this big bang. It covers up all of the problems. But now they can't figure out how to slow it down. But if you have faith they will invent some other thing to stop it.
If you're going to insult scientists and science, then you should get your facts straight before you do so. It's amazing how people who know nothing about science (which this quote proves includes you) feel perfectly free to make grossly offensive statements about those who do.
Maybe you could try that faith you talked about and believe that it's wrong to slander, especially when you have no reason to slander except for maybe some false information you heard third-hand somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 7:47 PM q3psycho has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by q3psycho, posted 02-04-2004 7:27 AM truthlover has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 307 (82895)
02-03-2004 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 7:47 PM


Remember - you need faith.
Circular reasoning. You're explaining how it's not a discrepancy by asking us to assume that it's not a discrepancy. That's bogus, faith or not. Faith is not the opposite of reason, my friend.
The ideas weren't doing so well so they invented this big bang. It covers up all of the problems. But now they can't figure out how to slow it down.
What are you talking about? Why do I have this sense that you don't know anything about cosmology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 7:47 PM q3psycho has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 11:45 PM crashfrog has replied

q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 307 (82907)
02-03-2004 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
02-03-2004 11:09 PM


You guys are pretty tough.
Um, sorry if I slandered anyone. Isn't all of the Bible taken on faith? I'm being honest about that you guys. You have to believe in it first. That's what makes it inerrant. If I lose faith then I'll be like you and say all of these things are wrong and inconsistent.
On the big bang thing, isn't it now a problem because the Universe will just expand forever and get cold? Don't they have to invent some other thing so the universe doesn't fall apart? what good is a universe that can't even stay together?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 02-03-2004 11:09 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 02-04-2004 2:00 AM q3psycho has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 307 (82935)
02-04-2004 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by q3psycho
02-03-2004 11:45 PM


If I lose faith then I'll be like you and say all of these things are wrong and inconsistent.
Why don't you try applying your intellect instead of your faith? I assure you it's possible to reconcile a reasonable mind with a spiritual life. Plenty of people here do it, though I personally have no interest.
The inerrancy or errancy of the Bible doesn't have anything to do with how meaningful it is as a spiritual guide. Some things are mythically true. Romeo and Juliet doesn't have to be a true story to say something true about love.
On the big bang thing, isn't it now a problem because the Universe will just expand forever and get cold?
I think you misunderstand how science works. We don't invent parts of theories to avoid outcomes we don't like. Einstein did it once and forever after referred to it as his "greatest blunder."
If the universe is going to expand forever, then that's what it's going to do. No amount of invention on the part of theorists is going to change that.
what good is a universe that can't even stay together?
What does it matter if that's the universe we've got?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by q3psycho, posted 02-03-2004 11:45 PM q3psycho has not replied

q3psycho
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 307 (82987)
02-04-2004 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by truthlover
02-03-2004 10:27 PM


Well Mr Truthlover,I don't know if you saw that I said I didn't mean to offend anybody. Grossly offensive? Man, I sure didn't mean to be that way. I'm not a scientist. But I do like to read. Like reader's digest. Slander? That is really bad.
I thought they invented the big bang because the universe was expanding. So you have to ask where it started from. Well, the earliest staring point to expand from is from nothing. So that covers one problem - where it got started. But now you've got more problems. But this isn't the place to discuss those. I just hope you're not still mad at me.
Mr. Frog has been asking me hard questions and I don't like them very much. I can't see his post now. You know if I thought like you say intellectually about my wife there would be two problems with that. First, we'd never have sex. Second, I don't think we'd be in love.
So is intellectualism everything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by truthlover, posted 02-03-2004 10:27 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by truthlover, posted 02-04-2004 8:42 AM q3psycho has replied
 Message 17 by hitchy, posted 02-04-2004 8:58 AM q3psycho has not replied
 Message 72 by Nils Jansma, posted 09-14-2005 1:57 AM q3psycho has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024