Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

You sure about that?

quote:

---

WASHINGTON, DC — Despite new repairs to the Hubble Telescope, NASA refuses to release old photos or take new ones of Heaven!

​

In 1994, a researcher was smuggled one top-secret photo the Hubble Space Telescope had taken of what is presumed to be Heaven.

---

source

Your view requires the listing of people at the end of Gen. 4:

quote:

---

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

​

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

---

and the listing of people which immediately follows in Gen. 5:

quote:

---

4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

​

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

​

6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

---

to be completely different people even thought they have the exact same names in the same order, presented back-to-back from one chapter to the next.This ridiculousness refutes your view.

Well now you're just being inconsistent. You pick and choose when you want to use the Chapter divisions and when you don't, and when you want to take one specific word as divinely inspired or not. You have your a priori belief and you'll twist the Bible to fit it however you need to.There's no reason to take your particular apologetic over any other one.That you can twist the Bible up so bad as to avoid any refutation isn't saying anything more than you're skills as a mental gymnast.ABE: From your own source:

quote:

---

Timeframes of the Two Accounts
Scholars categorize these two stories into two separate time frames. The first is known as the Priestly (P) account because it is associated with the priestly caste of ancient Israel, while the second is known as the Jahwist (J) account because the J writer always calls the Creator, Yahweh.

​

The P account is dated much earlier than the J account because it is mythological in nature. Scholars believe that it was based on the Enuma Alish, an ancient Babylonian myth. The P account also tends to try to "de-mythologize the cosmological myths" (Buchner, Frank. Ph.D. "Genesis 1-3") in the final analysis. The emphasis here is on the Sabbath (the seventh day when God rested) and also on the image of mankind as being in the image of God so that man is perceived as being superior to all other of God's creations.

​

On the other hand, the J account is less concerned with trying to historicalize the act of creation and more interested in explaining why mankind differs from both the LORD God and the LORD God's other creations. It shows how man and woman try to become like the LORD God by means of eating the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and so are inferior to the LORD God, but also how they are separated from the LORD God's other creations because they marry, they are ashamed of their sexuality and nakedness, they must work hard for their food, and why women experience pain during childbirth.

---

Moses didn't write either of them...Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Where by "understanding" you mean: "making up stuff that still fits with the words", right? You say that a lot... yet its quite a worthless thing to say. On one hand, you just can't be correct for then, if you wanted, you could believe that you are a gay black jewish klansman... so can you do that?No, you must mean that you are free to believe what you want. But that's never been contended here...So what are you really saying? I see it as: "Neener-neener, I don't care what you say, I'm gonna stick to my beliefs regardless because I can if I want to." How childish! I already have:

quote:

---

Your view requires the listing of people at the end of Gen. 4 and the listing of people which immediately follows in Gen. 5 to be completely different people even thought they have the exact same names in the same order, presented back-to-back from one chapter to the next.

---

For your made-up apology to be correct, the Bible has to be this jigsaw puzzle that you have to chop up and reshape the pieces so you can fit them back together. Rather than the order we've all come to understand, ICANT's version has a chronology like this: Gen 1:1 then Gen 2:4 through Gen 4:26 then Gen 1:2 through Gen 2:3 then Gen 5.It turns god into a bumbling idiot who can't even get his own book right. Certainly he was capable of inspiring the people who decided on where the chapter divisions should be, no? Why accept Moses's inspiration but not another's? Because it doesn't fit with your apology?You pick and choose which things about the Bible you believe, because you have to deny some things to keep your story straight. For you, whether or not someone was inspired by god depends on whether or not they go with or against your own personal made up story. Even within one source, you'll accept one of their things and reject the other.You've come up with something you think keeps the Bible from being wrong, but you have to twist it so much that its not even the same Bible anymore. Plus, you have to go against a lot of factual knowledge we do have to maintain it.That's having an a priori story that you have to shoehorn the Bible into. That's not how you're supposed to do it. You're supposed to start with the Bible and then get the story from it. And if we're honest, it turns out that some of the things the Bible says are incorrect. But that's only a big deal to people who's house-of-cards faith rests on that literal inerrancy.Like I said, its ridiculous... More worthy of ridicule than any actual consideration.That's why it stands as refuted.

Yet in Message 96 you wrote:

quote:

---

If we had the originals then you could expect such a thing.

​

But we do not have the originals, we have copies of the copies of the copies, of the copies, of the copies, of the copies, of the copies, of the copies and I probably left out some. So man has been fooling with the Word of God for over 3500 years.

---

Just thought I'd point out another example of your inconsistency.

Message 94The important part:

quote:

---

For your made-up apology to be correct, the Bible has to be this jigsaw puzzle that you have to chop up and reshape the pieces so you can fit them back together. Rather than the order we've all come to understand, ICANT's version has a chronology like this: Gen 1:1 then Gen 2:4 through Gen 4:26 then Gen 1:2 through Gen 2:3 then Gen 5.

​

It turns god into a bumbling idiot who can't even get his own book right. Certainly he was capable of inspiring the people who decided on where the chapter divisions should be, no? Why accept Moses's inspiration but not another's? Because it doesn't fit with your apology?

​

You pick and choose which things about the Bible you believe, because you have to deny some things to keep your story straight. For you, whether or not someone was inspired by god depends on whether or not they go with or against your own personal made up story. Even within one source, you'll accept one of their things and reject the other.

​

You've come up with something you think keeps the Bible from being wrong, but you have to twist it so much that its not even the same Bible anymore. Plus, you have to go against a lot of factual knowledge we do have to maintain it.

​

That's having an a priori story that you have to shoehorn the Bible into. That's not how you're supposed to do it. You're supposed to start with the Bible and then get the story from it. And if we're honest, it turns out that some of the things the Bible says are incorrect. But that's only a big deal to people who's house-of-cards faith rests on that literal inerrancy.

​

Like I said, its ridiculous... More worthy of ridicule than any actual consideration.

​

That's why it stands as refuted.

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Non-squitor.That I can see that your apology as a whole is nonsensical does not necessitate that your affirmations of each verse can easily be rebutted.But of course you'd prefer it this way, for then when the ambiguity of a specific verse arrises, you can fall on your standard 'You're can believe what you want'.Going verse by verse wouldn't allow either one of us to succeed, and then you feel like you can get away with claiming again that your version has never been refuted.Why can you not deal with the problem of your apology as a whole? Because you're wrong. No, not really. But I'll point a couple things out.One of your problems is using the phrase "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" in Gen 2:4, as absolutely having to be referring to Gen 1:1. Just because they use similiar verbiage doesn't mean they have to be literaly the exact same thing.Also, with Gen 1:1, you think that it must be declarative, and that it must mean that the earth was totally complete at that time. But it looks more like an opening phrase like "Once upon a time". You don't allow for any linguistic style or flavor at all, i.e. what words are used must be exactly what they specifically say and nothing else.You put Noah's Flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 as the cause of it being covered in water, right? But we see that the earth is formless and void, that wasn't the case after the flood. Noah and the animals were there so it couldn't have been "void". Plus it had to have some kind of form for them to land on...Rather than put more time in this, I'll see how you reply first and we can go from there.

No, they were created in the beginning. Gen 1:1 was written after the beginning. Also, its a copy of a copy of a copy, according to you, so why even cling to that particular wording as The Truth^TM...But further, what makes you think you even know what is being talked about as heaven and earth?You assume that earth means the planet Earth but it could be something else, like the land. So even your affirmation on it saying what it says doesn't support your interpretation of what it means.You're just making stuff up that you can shoehorn into what you think the words as presented mean. And you want us to try to argue against what the words are instead of what you are assuming they should be interpreted to mean. And then you're gonna keep claiming that your interpretation has not been refuted because your affirmation on what the words are have not been refuted.If you can see the problem with this then I can't help you.

---

ABE:Straggler had the best point in this thread:One could use the same words that you have affirmed to come to the conclusion that, not only are there two creation stories, but that there are two earths. You're position is an arbitrary post-hoc rationalization based on your own assumptions that you are unwilling to consider might be incorrect.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Because otherwise you might think that when the ground was referred to as "earth" that it was talking about the entire planet as a whole. If you knew that they didn't have the concept of a planet then you'd realize that "earth" was instead referring to the ground and the story would make more sense and be truer to itself. Wrong. This could easily lead you to some totally bullshit story, as we've seen. You've been refuted, ICANT. And I knew you'd act like this:

quote:

---

But of course you'd prefer it this way, for then when the ambiguity of a specific verse arrises, you can fall on your standard 'You're can believe what you want'.

​

Going verse by verse wouldn't allow either one of us to succeed, and then you feel like you can get away with claiming again that your version has never been refuted.Message 110

---

quote:

---

You're just making stuff up that you can shoehorn into what you think the words as presented mean. And you want us to try to argue against what the words are instead of what you are assuming they should be interpreted to mean. And then you're gonna keep claiming that your interpretation has not been refuted because your affirmation on what the words are have not been refuted.Message 163

---

We can see right through you, ICANT, and you're a dishonest person. He's not even the same between Gen1 and Gen2!!Is there anything you're not wrong about!?

But... but... he is just affirming what is written...ICANT is not an honest man.

I do. Its just an opening verse akin to "Once upon a time..."It is not declaring that there was one first day there with a complete Earth existing. You're too literal. You don't allow for any flavor. It doesn't have to be referring to some specific day as it could just be another idiomatic phrase like "In the beginning".You're focusing to much on individual and specific words and what they must be exactly pointing to rather than trying to understand what the author was intending to convey.

ICANT is trying to reconcile the seeming errors in the Bible with the scientific understanding of reality. We know the Earth is more than 10,000 years old but a literal interpretation of the Bible suggests otherwise. Enter Gap Creationism:

quote:

---

Gap creationism is a form of Old Earth creationism that posits that the six-day creation, as described in the Book of Genesis, involved literal 24-hour days, but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and the second verses of Genesis, explaining many scientific observations, including the age of the Earth.

---

It doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. Its about maintaining the Bible's authority as literal and inerrant.If you have to rely on that about the Bible to keep your faith in Jesus, then you've got problems.

No shit, Sherlock. I said it was akin to, meaning that it was like it, not that it was it. If it did say "Once upon a time", then you would be arguing that it happened literally a single instance on top of a thing that was time, or something equally as stupid as that. That's the problem with your approach. O RLY? When, specifically, was that starting point? Yes, ICANT... similiarly:"Once" a single incident."Upon" on top of."A time" a thing called time.Therefore "Once upon a time" is talking about a single incident on top of a thing called time.This is what your argument is like.

quote:

---

It does say "In the beginning'. A specific starting point.

---

Are you confused? Nope. Gen 1:2 starts with the conjuction "and". That conjuncts the first phrase with the second one making it one statement. In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth, and the Earth was formless and void. Then it goes on about how he formed the Earth. Its really pretty simple. But only if you twist it up so much that it nonsensical so that it doesn't go against what we do know about reality... then you can believe it. What do you think "Once upon a time" means, ICANT? Specifically.Read it like you're reading the Bible and tell me...

Maybe not The Gap Theory, but you do believe in a gap theory.You treat Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 as seperate events (despite them being conjucted), between which a whole bunch of stuff happened. That is a gap theory. We can't even be sure that Moses wrote it. In fact, he most likely did not. Bullshit!We know for a fact that the Earth was formed much later than the heavens were and that they were not formed at the same time.Whether or not god did it is a whole 'nother thing. A lie? No, Gen 1:1 is simply unintentionally wrong in its specifics. Alothough, as I said, its just a phrase. It is not a statement of a fact of history. Regardless though, your consequent is still a non-sequitor. Yeah, you're one of those all or nothing literalists. Your faith is a house of cards... on a waterbed! No wonder you have to go through so much deception to maintain your positions. You simply cannot face the Bible having an error or else your whole philosophy comes crashing down all the way to not having faith in Jesus any more. That is pathetic. You're a theological child and you show it with your behavior here.

From Message 365: Why? Its just an old folklore. But its so blatantly incorrect!? The earth and the heavens did not come about at the same time, the earth formed later than the heavens. I don't have a problem with God being the one who did it.From Message 367: Don't forget that ICANT said to use the KJV... although, only when it helps him and never when it hurts him

quote:

---

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

​

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.

---

Yeah, but your looking at it from now-a-days.The earth was "formless and void", which is referring to Chaos, which the cultures of the time thought of as the default state of existence. The earth is not the planet as a whole, but what the people viewed as their land. The deep referred to the vast uninhabitable body of salt water that was non-earth. The water is the regular, non-salty, water that is the purifier, the allower of life.So we have the land in chaos, and the deep already being there, as well as fresh water, and god jiggering with them to make a habitable place for us.Its fairly straight-forward and fits with the culture of the time.On the other hand, we have the planet, a concept the culture of the time didn't have, going through some kind of catastrophe first. But that doesn't really fit with views of the culture that this story sprang from. Plus, its not as striaght-forward and the story is some kind of secret code, that the intended audience would not have received, that you have to unlock to get the real understanding.