Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Are you saying man was created twice?

ICANT even by the high standards of creationists you hold some very weird views. Any clue as to when at all? Were these first humans the same as we know humans to be now? That is the Adam and Eve ones yeah? The ones we are descended from?

Then it what sense were they "human"? So we are created from one set of humans but Adam and Eve were a different earlier set of humans? Is that right?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Now I reaaly am confused.Which set of humans (the first or second) did Adam and Eve belong to?What happened to the first lot of humans?

Hold that thought!! Extrapolate to it's logical conclusion. Now why do you think any of the bible is the literal word of God?

Well it seems that you are taking blatant contradictions in the bible regarding the same people and the same biblical events and weaving your own tale of two humanities.Quite how you justify this is the part I am obviously missing?

Because I am asking why you think that the two accounts relate to different events and people. Rather than two contradictory and inconsistent accounts of the same things? What assertion? I have simply asked you to justify why it is you think there are two separate sets of events rather than one that has been accounted for inconsistently.So?

I would have thought it was something of a prerequisite. Yes you have - And the end result seems to be nothing more than an opinionated assertion on your part that two stories involving the same basic events involving people with the same names are two entirely seperate stories because you are unwilling to even entertain the idea that the bible might contradict itself in any way. So I keep being told. Maybe people just don't like having their baseless assumptions questioned?

The fact that you think it is "affirmed" rather than simply stated, asserted, suggested or even metaphorically implied is the root of the problem here. Do I need to rebut anything if the bible seems to "rebut" itself?ICANT is it possible that the bible is simply telling the same story twice in ways which are inconsistent? On what basis do you reject this seemingly obvious conclusion?

ICANT it seems obvious to numerous theistic and atheistic observers that the bible is simply telling the same story twice in ways which are inconsistent. On what basis do you reject this seemingly obvious conclusion? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Why would I do that? Nobody is disputing that the two chapters use different words. Nor am I claiming that they will perfectly match up in their descriptions. Same myth told in two different ways. I think they are. If two eye witness testimonies describe essentially the same events in different words and with some contradictory details do we conclude that they actually witnessed two completely different events? Occam is spinning like a electric whisk on steroids. Is it possible that the bible is just saying the same stuff twice in ways that are a bit inconsistent? Can you see why you seem to be alone on this?

What?ICANT can you clarify what it is you want here? What will it take for you to consider your position on this refuted?Are you expecting someone to go through the two chapters verse by verse and show that in fact they are entirely consistent with each other? That no meaning other than the same identical meaning is conceivably possible?What would refute your position on this in your eyes? Who?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And I agree that the two storeis don't agree perfectly. So what is your point?The point you seem to be missing here is that by making the baseless assumption that the bible is inerrant in some sense you are missing the conclusion that everyone else is making.Namely that it is the same story being told in two differently flawed ways.

Well you could start by looking at the over-arching similarities rather than the relatively minor differences?

In 1859 a book called "On The Origin of Species" was published by one Charles Darwin. In 1872 a book called "The Origin of Species" was published. Also by someone called Charles Darwin. Despite the many seeming similarities between these works it is my affirmation that there were two Charles Darwins who each wrote different books. Nothing matters except the differing titles and differences between these two books as that is all I am affirming in this post.Do you agree that the two books have different titles and different wordings in some areas? Yes/No.If I have misrepresented what the titles or other differences between these two books please show me where I did so.