|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Contradictions: Hint that Genesis 1 and 2 are Allegorical | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The original texts do not come from clans. They come from civilizations and empires. As you said in Message 38, prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I am surprised by your lack of knowledge. Whuh? You don't know me. We all lack knowledge of many things. Why would you be surprised by a random person's ignorance of some thing? Unless you were just acting like a jerk?
The original historical data we have of our origins comes from the Sumerian civilization. Later inherited by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians and so on. Oh, that's what you were talking about. You just posted a short little one-liner response to an 11 year old post. I didn't really think you were replying within the context of that thread, but still, its hard to tell what someone is talking about from just 14 words. I was way off with what I thought you were referring to as the "original texts".
On the other hand, interestingly enough, the pseudo scientific fictional theory of human evolution does come from a clan or a group of followers with a specific agenda. What does that have to do with this? Surely you're not trying to bait me?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Yes I was referring to the original (Sumerian) writings coming from ancient times. Can you see why someone might be confused when you come in and reply to a post, that is over 10 years old, that is talking about the books of Genesis in the Bible and when you refer to the "original writings" you are not talking about the Bible at all but instead are talking about some other, practically unrelated, ancient civilization? You didn't even hint at the fact that you were not referring to the Bible at all. Replies are tied to other messages and we typically stay within the context of those messages. To suddenly change to something completely different, with no mention of it to your audience, is only going to cause problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, in fact there is evidence of borrowing of themes from other creation accounts, particularly Mesopotamian, which includes Sumerian. Sure, like the great deluge in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The difference is that the Hebrews modified the accounts to change them from polytheistic to monotheistic. Meh, I wouldn't ascribe so much intention to that action, and especially not to them in general as a group. I consider it more of an unintentional cultural evolution. And they went from polytheism, through henotheism, and then onto monotheism. So it wasn't really a "Hey guys, let's change all this stuff to be talking about one god", its was more of a gradual cultural change across generations.
The reason for the differences in the two accounts is that they have different authors/sources - Genesis 1:1—2:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:4—24 is Jahwistic. The two accounts were actually written in reverse order, i.e., the Jahwist account was written first, and the Priestley account written later. Indeed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The story in chapter 1 and the story in chapter 2 are two different stories and happened billions if not trillions or more years in our time apart. You're still pushing your stupid gap theory? Where are you putting the break in Genesis this time? Still between Gen 4 and Gen 5? For the lurkers who are unaware, last time we discussed this ICANT had Gen 2 - Gen 4 all happening in a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, and then you go to Chapter 5 after the end of Chapter 1. Have you though of a better argument than "just coincidence" for why Chapter 4 ends with a man named Adam having a son named Seth who had a son name Enos, and Chapter 5 begins with a man named Adam having a son named Seth who had a son name Enos? Is your position still that those are two different groups of people who just happen to have the exact same names? Or have you modified your theory at all? Weren't you saying something about how verses 25 and 26 shouldn't be in Chapter 4, or something? You make any head way with that?
quote: ...
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You have me mixed up with someone else. No, I've debated this with you before.
I have never advocated a gap. That's exactly what you are doing... maybe you don't know what a Gap Theory is:
quote: Is that not exctly what you are describing?
The heavens and the earth began to exist in Genesis 1:1. Genesis 2:4 claims that it and what follows is the (history) generations of the heavens and the earth in 'the' day God created the heavens and the earth. That day (light period) lasted from the beginning to exist of the heavens and the earth until the evening (dark period) found at Genesis 1:2. No gap at all just one light period and one dark period declared to be day one by God Himself. The "gap" is between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. There are no verses between those two in the Bible. You are putting a bunch of stuff happening in between those two versus, thus you have a gap between them. The problem that arrises is where do you close the gap? Do you have the rest of the Bible all the way through Revelation happening before Gen 1:2? Or do you cut it off somewhere else? Last time you were closing the gap between Gen 4 and Gen 5. You said that the opening verse in Gen 5:
quote: says that it all took place in the day that God created man in his likeness, which you say is the stuff that takes place in Gen 1. But that doesn't work because Gen 4 ends with the exact same characters that Gen 5 begins with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The Genesis account of creation is absolutely true The only way to come to that conclusion is to first assume it is true and then interpret all the scripture into fitting into the assumption that it is all true. Like you did above with the idea that:
quote: You see, there's no reason to think that until you have gone through the scripture, already assuming it is true, and realizing that this must be the case in order to maintain scriptures' truthfulness. What other reason is there to think that there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2? The only reason is that it must be the case if we want to assume that scripture is true. That's not only a terrible way to find the truth, its is awful theology and a bastardization of the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So all of the events in Genesis 2 are consistent with Genesis 1. These are not two separate accounts but one unified account. But you haven't shown that. Rather than looking at the words and coming to a conclusion on whether they are the same story or not, you just assumed they were the same story and the provided whatever explanation would be needed if that was the case. It is simply begging the question, it is not "showing" that it is true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024