Examining Genesis 1-3

..bumpEdited by tthzr3, : clarityEdited by tthzr3, : link to Genesis 3Edited by tthzr3, : thread title changeEdited by tthzr3, : changed verbage for clarity as to the purpose of my PNT thread.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

I didn't follow the previous version, but the message one sure seems like launching version 1 again.My instinct is that you need to have something more to fly this topic again. Maybe add something in an additional message (not an edit of message 1)?Maybe a more Biblically oriented admin might be inclined to promote this, but not me.Other non-admins can comment on this situation at the "Considerations..." topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

As written, I agree with Adminnemooseus, this topic isn't going to fly even as a continuation.What further do you wish to examine?What is the purpose in examining these stories?
Is it to discover if they are actually two stories instead of one, were written at the same time, written by the same author, if they are partially true, if they are totally true, if they aren't true at all, is it to discern if there is a theological difference or no theological purpose at all to the stories?IOW, what are you examining the stories for?Don't say all of the above, because that makes the topic to general.On the items that you consider refuted, what more do you wish to examine? Why continue to list them?State your purpose and then make your case for your position or what you have discovered and provide reasoned support for your conclusions.If you have no purpose, then there is no need to continue this topic.

AdminPD,The purpose for this thread is to discuss: "the plausibility of two different creation stories, by two different authors, in Genesis 1-3".P.S. I have updated the PNT OP so please review it.Edited by tthzr3, : clarity to quoteEdited by tthzr3, : clarity to quote

---

Thank you

The OP still doesn't read as an obvious continuation of your previous thread.If you want to discuss "the plausibility of two different creation stories, by two different authors, in Genesis 1-3" then make a case for one side of the argument or the other. Surely you learned something from the first thread to spark a question.I don't see that what you want to do is truly a continuation of the previous thread.
I'm not inclined to promote this topic as written.

AdminPD,I want to discuss the topic to discover what is most plausible. I currently do not hold a firm opinion on the topic except that there is two creation stories. I am unsure if they were written by two authors and what not. Do you not open topics for issues to be discussed on here? Must one hold a firm opinion and appear to be a fool? I would rather discuss the topic with the community here at EVC.P.S. How is this thread not a continuation of the previous thread linked? The previous thread started out discussing the contradictions and now I want to take that discussion further by interpreting the facts and perhaps add some more facts by a discussion here at EVC as mentioned above.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.Edited by tthzr3, : No reason given.

---

Thank you

This is a debate forum and as I've told you before, when you tell people they have or haven't refuted what you have said, then you are debating, not discussing.You don't have to hold a firm position, but at least a starting position.

quote:

---

I want to discuss the topic to discover what is most plausible.

---

Then write an OP that expresses that desire. You haven't shown that you've learned anything from the previous discussion. You just repeated the OP. That's not a continuation or a viable topic starter.If all you have is this list, I'm not inclined to promote this topic.