Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

A better explanation.The story is fiction.There was never an Adam, Eve, Garden of Eden, serpent.The story is NOT meant to be literally true but rather to explain the world folk saw.You should challenge everything in the Bible.

---

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

For me of course. The Bible is not meant for God, but for man. To think I could do something or believe something for God only diminishes god and would be an act of pure hubris.It is not a matter of what I believe, it is a matter of the weight of evidence and the vast weight of evidence supports the position that Genesis 2&3 are mythos, fable, "Just So stories". But since you bring the subject of factuality up, there is also overwhelming evidence that they are not factual.You may assert that I do not know what the message is, but then you should explain why the message I do see in the fable is not the correct one and convince me that there is some other more reasonable message.

---

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

You are making the assumption though that the text following Genesis 2:4 refers to something in Genesis 1.But if you do that then you also need to understand that there are two different gods involved. the god in the stories beginning at Genesis 2:5 is most certainly not the god found in Genesis 1.It is possible I suppose that the god that is found in the stories beginning at Genesis 2:5 is just an amateur god, an apprentice or novice god just learning his accreditation. That would explain why he is such a bumbler, unsure, afraid, a hands on tinkerer much like Satan in the Mysterious Stranger.

---

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

No, you have asserted that what is in Genesis 2:4-4:24 refers to what is in Genesis 1, but that is all you have done. You have not explained anything convincingly.My refutation has been presented many times but I am of course happy to try yet again.The stories were written by two different (at a minimum two) cultures living a two different times meant to serve two different purposes for people living many hundreds if not thousands of years apart.The younger story, that begins in Genesis 1, was written by a more sophisticated people and meant to support the idea of the priestly week. In it the god is separate and aloof, not really interacting with the creation. The god creates by an act of will alone. It does the job without hesitation, looks on what was done, deems it good and so takes the next day off.The older story found in Genesis 2 describes a far more primitive god, intimate, human, sometimes unsure, a hands on tinkerer. This story has the purpose of explaining the world using a "Just So Story" format to explain what humans create a moral society, must farm instead of being hunter gatherers, fear snakes, domesticate animals and women and why childbirth seemed more painful for women than for the other animals. Then it continues on to try to describe the political and tribal relationships of the various peoples of the area.Creation itself is simply a plot device that both authors used but is not really the subject of either story.

---

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

Because Genesis 1 was written hundreds if not thousands of years after Genesis 2 and the two stories were written by different people from different cultures in different eras to appeal to different audiences and were meant to serve different purposes. You don't have to but if you really do "just take the words in the text and examine them and take them at face value" then the only reasonable conclusion is that two entirely different gods are described.

---

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

Yes, you do keep making assertions.The disagreement is not with the words but with your interpretation of the words.I have presented an alternative interpretation, the readers can decide which makes more sense.

---

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

I did not portray god as a liar, the authors, editors and redactors of Genesis 2&3 did that.In the story the god character says "16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. "BUT as we know, Adam did not surely die in that day, he went on to live for a far piece.The character in the story that actually tells the truth is the serpent.

quote:

---

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

​

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

---

That is exactly what did happen.

quote:

---

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:

---

All these things should be sufficient to tell you that neither Creation nor the god are to be taken literally or as the primary purpose of the story.

---

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

No, I have never said that. There is no connection between the story found in Genesis 1 and that older story in Genesis 2&3. No, it refers to the character Adam, found in the Genesis 2&3 story. She did not die in the very day she ate the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and according to the God in the story she did become like God to know good and evil.Have you ever read the Bible? Except once again you are simply wrong. The scientific evidence totally refutes ALL of the different creation accounts.

---

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

Again, he just pulls crap out of context.

quote:

---

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

​

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

​

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.

---

If you actually read what is there the first day is defined as the period including evening and morning, a 24 hour day.The same description is used throughout this particular story.ICANT's error is in trying to make other older stories fit into the much newer tale found in Genesis 1.

---

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

No, science and Genesis 1 are not in agreement. Genesis 1 is somewhat longer than Genesis 1:1.And the Bible is NOT the only source for the universe beginning; long before the Bible there was the creation tale of Atra-Hasis and the Egyptian myths and the Hindu Vedas and many more.Actual observations do not concur with the Bible, in fact they refute the Bible. He does not exist during Genesis 1:1 either.Because there is no connection between the fable in Genesis 1 and the other earlier fables. Two different stories. That's like asking if the Connecticut Yankee lived during Huck Finn.The Bible has many many authors, many stories that are combinations of different stories, some just stuck together even though they tell different stories.

---

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

So far you have not been very convincing. And then you pull the Holy Spirit crap and act like you are warning folk.What makes you even think they need an excuse or will have anything to be excused?Maybe it is the other people that actually worship the Righteous Judge and you that Blaspheme the Holy Spirit?Worry not, I will pray for your enlightenment.

---

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

Because your version makes little sense and is absolutely refuted by the evidence of the world we live in.

---

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

Cause they are two different stories written by different authors living in different cultures to serve different purposes, revised and redacted by even later people.the NIV says

quote:

---

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

​

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

---

This appears to be the actual end of the newer story that begins in Genesis 1. The placement as we see it today is a remnant of the early redactors that were editing and modifying the stories around the time the first five books of the Bible were first Canonized.Then the old part of Genesis 2 story starts.

quote:

---

When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

You can see this clearly in the NIV version of Genesis 2 because there is an unusual indentation and break between the two section.

quote:

---

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

​

2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

---

They are two different stories, the older beginning at Gen2:4b {When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-}, the newer younger story running from Genesis 1-2:4a.Two different stories, two different cultures that were hundreds if not thousands of years apart meant to convey two entirely different messages and both factually wrong.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

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

You are of course, free to disagree with just about anything, however, the division between Genesis 2:4a and 2:4b is accepted just as I posted it. Because they were written by two different peoples with two different ideas about what God was and two different creation myths to reach two different audiences with two different messages, and creation itself is just a plot device in both stories.The myth found in Genesis 2&3 begins at "When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-" and the younger myth plus redacted inserts ends at " 4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. " After that period a new story starts.And don't forget, both myths are factually wrong.

---

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

Nope. Not in the same book.

---

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