|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5041 days) Posts: 14 From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When looking at the story found in Genesis 1 and in the story found in Genesis 2&3 in relation to inerrancy, we can look at how the stories are viewed by theologians.
In the Pastoral Letter of Bishop Sims he said:
quote: There is also the two entirely different gods described in the two stories as pointed out above. These differences should force the reader to look and see if those differences do create questions about whether the Bible can be inerrant, or "under what definition of inerrant" could they fit? Well it is obvious that neither can be taken as literal or factually true. If one is literal and factual, then the other must be false. When you also consider that both are factually incorrect, that neither describes creation that is compatible with the actual evidence that is the universe we live in, then they must not be meant as scientific or historical accounts. They can be considered as inerrant in regards to the belief that GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen. The different tales may be understood as accounts created by people of differing cultures, times, milieus, one, the latter, from a much earlier tradition and concept of god, the former a much later and somewhat more sophisticated god. They do agree on the "WHY" of creation, Turning again to Bishop Sims' Pastoral Letter we find...
quote: Source Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN  Suspended Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
JAR - The above QUOTES are not evidence, it is a quote. You need to provide evidence that clearly proves that G1 and G2 are two separate/different accounts. No one has done that, and until someone does I will be here calling you on all of your disinformation misinformation, cognitive dissonance and whatever else you "think" can be passed off as a valid point affirming the lie of the OP
The people who you are cutting and pasting from whatever source you are cutting and pasting them from do not become theologians just becuase your or they call themselves theologians. But before you go off getting excited about the points of views and statement made by "theologians" A theology Degree is a degree that any athiest can earn by studying at a any University in the world. A theologian is not necessarily a worthy bible scholar who knows or understands the scripture and or the history of the scripture. There are bible scholars in this world who spend their entire lives devoted to studying just one book in the bible. A theologian can pick up these letters after his name after three years at any secular university. Now lets see if you can google any of the following bible scholars and theologians to back up your ludicrous quotes that have been cut and pasted into this thread. James A. Borland Th. DBenjamin C Chapman Ph. D Edward G. Dobson D.D Jerry Falwell D.D, D. Litt Paul R. Fink Th. D Harvey D. Hartman Th. M. Ronald E. Hawkins D. Min Edward E. Hinsdon, Th. D D. Min Elmer A. Jantz. Th. M F.Gerald Kroll, D. Min Woodrow Michael Kroll Th. D. William E. Matheny Ph. D Stephen R. Schrader Th. D Elmer L Towns Ph. D D.D Harold L Wilmington Charles L. Fineberg Th. D Ph. D Daniel R Mitchell Th. D C Summer Wemp D.D Edward R Roustio Th. D James D. Stevens D. Min James Freerkson Th. D OH AND JAR PLEASE RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO GO OFF TOPIC AGAIN WITH YOUR PERFERRED VERSION OF CREATION EVENTS. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS DISINFORMATION FEST IS DEALING WITH AT PRESENT!!!!!!!!
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments, if there are any. AdminPD Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
You still seem to be misunderstanding what's happening here. There is no question that the stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are different. If they were the same, there would be no point to presenting it twice. You need to provide evidence that clearly proves that G1 and G2 are two separate/different accounts. That isn't the question at all. The question is: What are the implications of two different stories being presented side by side? Clearly, the writers/compilers of Genesis were not uncomfortable with including both stories. The question is: Why not? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN  Suspended Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
This is the point of this thread
OP states that its says Genesis 1 Animals, Plants, and Man. Genesis 2 Man, Plants, Animals, Woman Which is an actual fact a lie it does not say that at all. If you are saying it does then go ahead and prove it to me right now or stop talking to me in this thread because your tactics are annoyingly childish and repetative. I know you get your kicks from it but I don't. You have no axe to grind because you don't care. I do care, the OP is a lie. I have proved that, you need to prove that I am wrong and the that the op is correct, if you can't or won't do that then please just shut up. The use of semantics and funny Scientic words means diddly squat mate, Different/separate what ever Genesis Chapter one is Genesis Chapter one following on form that is Genesis chapter 2 IE chapter two of the same book. To even imply that there are two different/separate/contrasting... or whatever way you want to word is imbecilic. Now we all understand what the topic is at hand. I know what you are a saying it is, and I know what the OP is saying it is now can one of you children please go ahead and prove to me what you think it says that it actually doesnt say at all????????The only thing worth while in this thread Ringo, is that you have garnerd an oh so funny (not) stupid signature from it. Grow up and move on pal. OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Address only topic related comments, if there are any. AdminPD Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3484 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Some thoughts from Friedman's book suggest that it was an issue of keeping everyone "happy". Separately, the books and stories were known and supported by various groups and associated with history. J&E were quoted in D. P had been around since Hezekiah's day and had been associated with national reform. D had been read publicly in Josiah's day and by the time of the Redactor the tradition that Moses had written all the stories in the first five books had taken hold. It would have been difficult for the Redactor to put the stories side by side like the Gospels since tradition said they came from the same author. The Redactor was supposedly about Ezra's time if not Ezra himself, so there was a lot of rebuilding to do for the Jews. The familiar is always comforting in times of chaos. The Redactor was bringing a crushed kingdom back together. Since the majority of people were illiterate, hearing a familiar story even though it is slightly different wouldn't cause problems. As you know in storytelling the story doesn't stay exactly the same The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN  Suspended Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
When did the Redactor redact the Gospel of Mary?
The saviour said there was no such thing as evolution just before he evolved before their very eyes into a crocodile The Gospel of Crocodile Dundee. My new signature what do you think folks? Like it? Im taking votes.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13035 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.0 |
Hi Noma,
I'm going to be moderating this thread for a while. EvC Forum's interest is in encouraging on-topic messages that move discussion constructively forward by focusing on evidence and rational argumentation. If you share this interest then things should go fine. Edited by Admin, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
To continue looking at Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 in regard to inerrancy it might help to look further and see how Christian Clergy see it.
For example, in the Clergy Project Letter we see the following...
quote: Source So the fact that neither of the accounts are factually correct and that the two different stories are mutually exclusive and the gods in the stories entirely different is not an issue. Edited by jar, : fix subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN  Suspended Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
Hi Percy
Great, thanks for that. Is it the right place to bring up that it is patently obvious that 9 out of 9 signatures are an intentional violation of rule number 10 and they follow people around like a bad smell in every post? On a more serious note is it too much to ask that some proof be supplied to support what the OP states? IE: Genesis 1 Animals, Plants, and Man. Genesis 2 Man, Plants, Animals, Woman. When it actually states nothing of the sort!!!!! CAN this be addressed? I have already shown that it says nothing of the sort and now me have wiseacres posting further illedged quotes from illedged clergy. Ummm why? Back up and or support the OP first please and thank you. NOW! Its time to get real in this thread, someone needs to prove that the OP says what it say IE that G1 and G2 contradict themselves when they IN ACTUAL FACT DO NOT!! So let's see if you genuinely are interested in furthering the discussion towards that end. Im definately on the same page as you if you are. Mind you it must be said that given the OP is an irrational argement it will not be possible for this in suppport of it to provide rational arguemnetation will it? I have declared and proved it to be a LIE. So, in that case I would appreciate that the OP be declared false and then we can all move on to a more sane rational worthwhile debate. I now thats too much to ask but we all have our dreams and visions. Cheers NOMA. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
CAN this can be addressed. I have already shown that it says nothing of the sort and now me have wise acres posting further illedged quotes from illedged clergy. Ummm why?
Are you saying the signers of the Clergy Project Letter are not clergy? Any evidence for this if this is what you are saying? ABEIlledged? Does that mean they need to be sharpened? Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN  Suspended Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
Lol, I didn’t post it mate, I don't have to prove that it is allegedly posted by clergy. The poster who posted it is alleging that it is. Let’s see him prove that it is if you really want to go down that line, which is just another futile attempt to dig a rabbit hole in the concrete isn’t it?
What do you really think that post of yours has added to the discussion other than to collect another OFF TOPIC pink stinker from me responding to it like this? IE with the disdain it deserves. You know, out side in the real world we are all probably really nice blokes who would get on famously well over milk and cookies but in here you seem to want to incite violence it's really really sad. I admit my spelling is atrocious and I've got dislexia hense all the edits I do, Apologies of that. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
You are the one making the claim that this an alleged(glad to see you discovered spell check) letter by alleged clergy. All you have to do is click the link that Jar gave. He has done his part in supporting with evidence. You on the other hand never support any of your assertions with evidence. You love to attack and make assertions but as of yet no evidence.
You make an assertion back it up.And yes this is on topic. Jar explained clearly why it is on topic. To continue looking at Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 in regard to inerrancy it might help to look further and see how Christian Clergy see it. For example, in the Clergy Project Letter we see the following... You made a claim seemingly accusing him of fabrication. I just want you to back up your claim with something. Here are a few from the A's.Are you claiming these are not christian clergy? quote:Source If so why?
but in here you seem to want to incite violence it's really really sad.
Why would you feel the need to get violent? That seems a bit over the top for an internet debate. I don't think any of us atheists feel incited to violence by you. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN  Suspended Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 51 Joined: |
Fabulous a bit of useless evidence??
My dear Theodoric, any one who posts something/anything, that is a quote, until the source has been proven to be what it alleges itself to be then it simply means that it is alleged to be what it is. That doesn't mean it isn't what it is alleged to be. Are we clear on that? Now perhaps you could answer why introducing a whole bunch of views from an alleged list of people who are alleged to be clergy has to do with the price of fish?? I would be most grateful. Perhaps you would like me to explain why I would like to know this? Okay thanks for asking, well the thing is the discussion we are having here (at least what I thought) is what the bible actually says in genesis chapter 1 and 2, and not what people THINK it says. Because it’s what people think it says, but it doesn’t say, that is causing all the problems here, so why introduce a whole bunch of others regardless if they claim to be clergy or atheists. No one is bothering to discuss the OP so why would you expect me to entertain discussing the introduction of thoughts from a list of others. Start another thread topic if you want to waffle and ramble about the musings of an alleged clergy please and thank you. I don’t care who or what THINKS G1 and G2 says, I'm concerned here with what it DOES in ACTUAL FACT SAY! Now can you start to address that topic please and perhaps my alleged feelings of violence may begin to subside a bit. Sometimes one has to go "over the top" when the pile of verbal devacation in the room is rising higher and higher. I'm sure you will agree. In other words you do not a have the right to CONTINUE talking the same amount of balls that you have ALL been talking up until now until you START to talk about the original topic at hand. Are we clear on that by any chance too? Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given. Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
until the source has been proven to be what it alleges itself to be then it simply means that it is alleged to be what it is.
Evidence has been given. Look at the evidence. You allege many things. None with evidence.
Now perhaps you could answer why introducing a whole bunch of views from an alleged list of people who are alleged to be clergy has to do with the price of fish?? I have already explained that Jar makes a justification of the relevance in his post. Your post here just confirms the fact that you are unable to back up your assertions. Not on;y do you refuse to provide any evidence for your assertions, but refuse to even look at evidence presented to you.
if they claim to be clergy
Again you make statements suggesting they are not clergy. Why are they not clergy? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
ind you it must be said that given the OP is an irrational argement it will not be possible for this in suppport of it to provide rational arguemnetation will it? Might I ask, why is the OP irrational? The topic is rational, the post is rational and he asks for rational comments. Simply whether Gen1 and Gen2 are contradictory with evidence to back up the position. nHow is this irrational. YourStatement:
Its time to get real in this thread, someone needs to prove that the OP says what it say IE that G1 and G2 contradict themselves when they IN ACTUAL FACT DO NOT!! makes a point, but where is your evidence? If they do not, you should be able to show they do not, otherwise your statement is irrational. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024