Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 136 of 295 (577735)
08-30-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by jar
08-26-2010 1:30 PM


Re: Chronology
quote:
The witness that supports my assertions is called physics and the earth. This earth was created after the sun and as part of the process of creating this solar system. It is all just the result of physics.
There is no magical forces in physics creating solar systems nor any other conglomeration of objects. Gravity is too weak to originate any assembly of anything.
And there is no filter mechanism by which to produce the planets as they now exist.
However, an intelligent and powerful God can arrange things as needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 1:30 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by greyseal, posted 09-04-2010 3:01 PM Joseppi has replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 137 of 295 (577737)
08-30-2010 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by kbertsche
08-26-2010 2:48 PM


Re: Chronology
quote:
kbertsche: Thus it often is translated "and then" or "then" instead of "and."
And the text in English proves this. What many are doing is using the word..."And" as if it meant "And then". Which it of course doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by kbertsche, posted 08-26-2010 2:48 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by kbertsche, posted 08-30-2010 2:25 PM Joseppi has not replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 138 of 295 (577743)
08-30-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Coragyps
08-26-2010 3:57 PM


Re: Chronology
quote:
Coragyps: According to the witness of the rocks that your man-in-the-sky supposedly created. That evidence is reproduced in mines and oil wells and archaeological digs and basements all over the world!!
The rocks of the earth reveal that a global flood occurred. The rocks do not present the absurd notion that a filtering of constituents occured over great lengths of time.
All filtering of material is accomplished by gravity in a water medium while all the materials are present and accounted for, and the currents of water are attenuated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Coragyps, posted 08-26-2010 3:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

Joseppi
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 50
From: New Albany, In, USA
Joined: 08-23-2010


Message 139 of 295 (577745)
08-30-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by jar
08-27-2010 6:07 PM


Re: Chronology
quote:
Jar: Genesis 1 says the Sun was created on day four.
Genesis 1 says the Earth was created on day 1.
That is impossible.
Personal incredulity in not a argument.
There is no physical reason why the sun was needed till day four.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by jar, posted 08-27-2010 6:07 PM jar has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 140 of 295 (577771)
08-30-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Joseppi
08-30-2010 7:19 AM


Re: Chronology
The text of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 is readily available for folk to read.
Look at the two different gods found in the fables.
The god in the much older story found in Genesis 2&3 is very human, very hands on making mud figures, unsure, not knowing which critter would make a helpmeet for Adam, not quite honest, telling Adam that the day he eats from the Tree of Knowledge he will die when in fact Adam lives on for many years afterward, fearful and expelling Adam and Eve because he fears they might become immortal.
That is a very primitive god, one very much like the older mythologies of the Vedas, Greeks, Sumer and Elam.
The god described in Gen 1 though is entirely different, overarching, creating by will alone, supremely confident and competent, but apart, separate from what is created.
Two different gods as seen by two different peoples living in two different eras and cultures.
joseppi writes:
Exactly. Chapter one is about creation. Chapter two is about the generation thereof, as the text informed all readers.
Actually, creation is just a subplot in both stories and is really not very important. That is likely why the editors and redactors included two different and mutually exclusive accounts and did not try to merge the stories together like they did with the different versions of the flood myth.
Genesis 1 introduces the overarching god, Gen 2&3 present the personal god. Genesis 1 sets up the week and the sabbath. Gen 2&3 are a "Just So" story that explains why humans must farm and not just live off the land like their ancestors did, why we fear snakes, why childbirth for humans seems more painful, why we wear clothes and have social morality.
joseppi writes:
Testimony trumps any assumptions scientists make.
Testimony does not trump physical evidence.
joseppi writes:
There is no magical forces in physics creating solar systems nor any other conglomeration of objects. Gravity is too weak to originate any assembly of anything.
And there is no filter mechanism by which to produce the planets as they now exist.
However, an intelligent and powerful God can arrange things as needed.
I'm sorry but you are simply wrong there. Please at least stop and think for a moment. Of course gravity is strong enough to hold things together. You do not drift off into space. It is gravity that holds you on the surface of this planet.
We use gravity often. When we sent people to the moon it was gravity that caused the vessel to circle the moon and gravity that held the astronauts on the surface and gravity that required they use their rocket engine to slow their descent.
joseppi writes:
Personal incredulity in not a argument.
There is no physical reason why the sun was needed till day four.
LOL
It is not a matter of personal incredulity, it is a conclusion based on physics and observation.
Need has nothing to do with whether or not something exists.
BUT, it is another great example (one of many) of where the Genesis 1 fable is factually wrong.
quote:
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.
First, seed bearing fruits were NOT the first plant life, not by millions and millions and millions of years. Furthermore, seed bearing plants do need the sun to exist, and it doesn't get created until the next day.
The stories are just fables, myths, and creation is not even that important a part of the myths.
Edited by jar, : even my spell checker is applin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Joseppi, posted 08-30-2010 7:19 AM Joseppi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Joseppi, posted 09-15-2010 12:13 PM jar has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 141 of 295 (577782)
08-30-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Joseppi
08-30-2010 8:29 AM


Resting
quote:
Have you presented anything that says God started creating again afterwards?
This is in regard to CREATING not forming, nor generating, nor any other act that operates on created things.
See Message 119.
God not starting another creation project doesn't mean "God's day of rest" from his first project hasn't ended yet."
His project of creating was done. He rested for a day. We don't know what he did on the 8th day. The story doesn't tell us that God's day is longer than ours.
When I finish exercising ( ), I rest from exercising. When I'm done resting, I continue with my day. I am not still resting from exercising even though I don't exercise again that day. If three days pass until I exercise again, I have not been resting from exercise for three days.
Just as ICANT did, you making a distinction that isn't in the story and doesn't follow normal language usage. You're adding to the story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Joseppi, posted 08-30-2010 8:29 AM Joseppi has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 142 of 295 (577784)
08-30-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Joseppi
08-30-2010 7:17 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
Hi Joseppi,
Joseppi writes:
It doesn't say what you wrote here.
It reads instead....
Genesis 2:4 ...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens....
Well I quoted the exact verse and you quoted only half of the verse. Here is the full quote again.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created."
"in the day the LORD God created the earth and the heavens."
In Message 96 I said: "According to the text "in the day" refers to the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth."
So please explain how what I wrote is incorrect.
Joseppi writes:
In the first verse there was only one heaven created.
Heaven didn't become "heavens" until God created the firmament and called it Heaven.
Which heaven was that?
You stated in Message 128:
The three heavens of which Paul speaks is...
1) The atmosphere of the earth.
2) The cosmos in which the earth dwells.
3) The heaven where God's throne is.
Which one of these places did God inhabit when He created the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1?
In Genesis 1:1 God created the heaven and the earth.
In Genesis 1:6 God created the atmosphere and called it heaven.
The Hebrew word שמים transliterated shamayim means: from Brown, Driver, Briggs Lexicon:
1) heaven, heavens, sky
...a) visible heavens, sky
1) as abode of the stars
2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
...b) Heaven (as the abode of God)
The Hebrew word שמים in Genesis 1:1 and the Hebrew word שמים in the first half of Genesis 2:4 and the Hebrew word שמים in the last half of Genesis 2:4
are the same word in the same tense. The difference in the translations was at the translators choice.
In Message 131 You said:
The chosen meanings of words are determined by context not by dictionaries.
But you can not change the meaning of the words. You can only use the variations of the words.
Well the meaning of Hebrew words come from Hebrew Lexicons. The words used in the KJV Bible was chosen by the translators as are all the other versions.
That is why I studied Hebrew for 6 years at college level and then have studied it for the past 40 years so I would not have to accept what they said.
In Message 126 You said:
Genesis 1:2 says that darkness was upon the face of the deep. God allowed no light in the deep until he said..Let there be light.
The deep was a place in the singular heaven.
The text says:
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This verse says that something you call "the deep" was the earth that was created in Genesis 1:1 and was at this time covered in darkness and water.
So yes it was a place in the heaven created in Genesis 1:1.
So what was your point?
In Message 127
Who's trying?
Genesis 1:2 was the indetermate period of time between the creation of the earth and heaven and the creation of our present cosmos.
You are.
Genesis 1:2 is the dark period following the light period in which Genesis 1:1 took place.
According to God's definition of a day in Genesis 1:5 day is a light period or the combination of a light period and dark period.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
I have hear this mentioned several times but I have seen no text to support such an assertion.
Back to the current message I am responding too.
Joseppi writes:
And Jesus will come again to establish God's throne on earth forever in the culmination of a new heaven and a new earth. Where once again a singular heaven and a singular earth will exist.
In Message 128 you said:
And Jesus will come again to establish God's throne on earth forever in the culmination of a new heaven and a new earth. Where once again a singular heaven and a singular earth will exist.
But that is not the present as you asserted.
God's throne will be on the earth not up in the sky. Read...the book of the Revelation.
Also, note that Solomon in his dedicatory prayer concerning the temple he built in Jerusalem expressed this understanding.
But that is still in the future it is not in the present as you asserted.
The use of capitalization to mark ownership and other things is not required.
capitalization did not exist in the original text.
The translators of the Bible disagree with your opinion and noted what they discerned the Hebrew text to be stating.
The translators of the KJV Bible used capital letters on heaven and earth in Genesis 1:1 as they felt the heaven and earth was a proper name for what God brought into existence.
But itt does not matter what translators say, as you can find one who says anything you want to read.
If you don't believe that just go to the Bible book store and see how many different translations you can find.
I have 44 different translations on my computer that I can read, and I have access to over 100 more.
Now when it comes to the original text there was no capital letters, no verses, and no chapters.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Joseppi, posted 08-30-2010 7:17 AM Joseppi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2010 12:44 PM ICANT has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 143 of 295 (577787)
08-30-2010 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Joseppi
08-30-2010 7:35 AM


Re: Chronology
Joseppi writes:
ringo writes:
You're altering what chapter two says to fit your assumption about chapter one.
You didn't offer any example of anyone altering anything.
Are you or are you not claiming that Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1? If you are, you are altering Genesis 2 to fit because the chronologies, as written, are clearly different.
You're giving different meanings to "created" and "formed", claiming that things were created in chapter one and formed in chapter two. As the previous thread showed, that isn't valid.
Here's one example from that thread:
quote:
Isaiah 43:7 Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
All three words mean the same thing.
Joseppi writes:
And the chronology of chapter one it is numbered day by day in the text.
Yes, and the chronology of chapter two is implied by the narrative.
Joseppi writes:
ringo writes:
There are threads somewhere about "created, formed and made" if you care to search for them. As I recall, the words are pretty much interchangeable.
The translation is clear and precise in English.
"Created", "formed" and "made" are pretty much interchangeable in English too. If your case depends on the precise meaning of those words, you really don't have a case.

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Joseppi, posted 08-30-2010 7:35 AM Joseppi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Joseppi, posted 09-15-2010 11:38 AM ringo has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 144 of 295 (577816)
08-30-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Joseppi
08-30-2010 8:53 AM


Re: Chronology
Joseppi writes:
kbertsche writes:
Thus it often is translated "and then" or "then" instead of "and."
And the text in English proves this. What many are doing is using the word..."And" as if it meant "And then". Which it of course doesn't.
You completely missed my point! If the Hebrew construction is a waw-consecutive (preterite), the "and" usually DOES mean "and then." This is the most literal translation and is how one is normally taught to translate the waw-consecutive in a biblical Hebrew class. So unless the context argues against it, the waw-consecutives in Gen 1 and Gen 2 (which are most of the "and's") should be translated "and then."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Joseppi, posted 08-30-2010 8:53 AM Joseppi has not replied

graft2vine
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 07-27-2006


Message 145 of 295 (578804)
09-02-2010 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hepteract
06-25-2010 2:48 PM


quote:
I noticed that the only active thread on this topic in the Accuracy and Inerrancy section has been discontinued. I think that this is an important topic to be discussed.
  —hepteract
Also check out Adam was created on the 3rd day
quote:
Here is the argument: Genesis 1 states that the order of creation went Animals, Plants, Man & Woman.
It's plants then animals in Genesis 1.
quote:
Genesis 2, however, states the order was Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.
Now if you read them both together, the order is Man, Plants, Animals, Woman, then Man & Woman. 1 Cr 15 teaches that there are two creations of Adam. The first Adam was created on the 3rd day, and the second on the 6th day.
1Cr 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1Cr 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
The Adam created on the third day was made from the earth. He was unfinished and therefore not mentioned as one of God's completed creations in Genesis 1 until day six, where he is made of spirit (in God's image).
God Bless

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 2:48 PM hepteract has not replied

III
Junior Member (Idle past 4664 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 146 of 295 (578901)
09-02-2010 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hepteract
06-25-2010 2:48 PM


Interpreting
hepteract,
You're going to find that for each individual, typically, there is a different interpretation of G1 and G2 even from a atheistic interpretation . If you are interested in learning about those interpretations you should search the internet. FYI: There is nothing in G1 or G2 that can be interpreted to the affect that they're in fact infallible documents, that decision is typically made by a church administration or individual. Since there is thousands of churches and billions of belief's, it is arguable weather or not G1 and G2 are in fact scriptures to be interpreted as infallible. I've seen everything from interpreters reading Genesis 1-2:3 to be a different creation account than Genesis 2:4-25 to them being interpreted as Genesis 1-2:3 to be a thought/spiritual creation/preparation and Genesis 2:4-25 being the real creation.
Edited by Dr.Whisky, : I corrected some errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 2:48 PM hepteract has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by purpledawn, posted 09-03-2010 8:21 AM III has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 147 of 295 (578969)
09-03-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by III
09-02-2010 11:57 PM


Re: Interpreting
Hey Dr. Whiskey,
Welcome to EvC. The members of EvC understand all the issues you raised, but this is a debate board. So members choose one side of an issue and debate it.
When one joins a discussion, one picks the side they wish to debate.
Again welcome and fruitful debating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by III, posted 09-02-2010 11:57 PM III has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by III, posted 09-03-2010 8:08 PM purpledawn has not replied

III
Junior Member (Idle past 4664 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 148 of 295 (579207)
09-03-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by purpledawn
09-03-2010 8:21 AM


Re: Interpreting
purpledawn,
My side of the argument is above.
Thanks for the welcome!
Edited by The Saint, : I edited my name from Dr.Whiskey to "The Saint".
Edited by III, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by purpledawn, posted 09-03-2010 8:21 AM purpledawn has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 149 of 295 (579406)
09-04-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Coragyps
08-26-2010 3:57 PM


Re: Chronology
Hi Coragyps,
Coragyps writes:
According to the witness of the rocks that your man-in-the-sky supposedly created. That evidence is reproduced in mines and oil wells and archaeological digs and basements all over the world!!
But the fossil record does not witness to evolution being a fact.
In fact it says evolution as presented does not happen.
The record in the rocks support the account given in Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2. That kind produces like kind. Adult dogs produce baby dogs, elephants produce baby elephants etc.
The record in the rocks shows a life form appearing all of a sudden and remaining for thousands or millions of years
with very little change and then going extinct.
If it contained the record that is presented at EvC as existing you would be able to find a tree of life with a picture of a life form at the bottom of the tree. You would find a picture of a life form at each place on the tree that a branch appears on the tree trunk, as well at every fork in the branches. You would also find different life forms scattered all through out the trunk as well as the branches.
But all we have is what someone has placed at the tips of the various branches. Everything else is to be taken on faith as there is no evidence for any life form existing at these separation points.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Coragyps, posted 08-26-2010 3:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

III
Junior Member (Idle past 4664 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 09-02-2010


Message 150 of 295 (579412)
09-04-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Coragyps
08-26-2010 3:57 PM


Re: Chronology
Coragyps,
The fossil record is evidence of evolution but it is also evidence of creation. Evidence is to be interpreted by interpreters. I will admit that the more interpreters of this case, the better the overall interpretation. However, I don't think even if the entire world thought that life as we know it was created through strictly random processes, which is not the case, that it would mean in fact life as we know it randomly evolved.
Edited by Dr.Whisky, : context meaning of last sentence
Edited by Dr.Whisky, : Removed last sentence. I also corrected some errors. FYI: I realized this post is a little off topic. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Coragyps, posted 08-26-2010 3:57 PM Coragyps 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