Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8752 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-29-2017 7:23 AM
122 online now:
bluegenes, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD (5 members, 117 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeliverUsFromEvolution
Post Volume:
Total: 809,190 Year: 13,796/21,208 Month: 3,278/3,605 Week: 64/556 Day: 15/49 Hour: 3/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2344 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 226 of 295 (581503)
09-15-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jar
09-15-2010 12:47 PM


Re: capitals and multiple heavens
What evidences is in the bible precisely?

Please clarify what you mean by that if you don't mind. I'm not tracking where your coming from.

I will try to adjust my attitude in the hope that everyone will like me and let me be their friend - because your all such nice and lovely people and then a brute beast like me turns up to ruin the party, it's a horrible world innit? Umm does that mean I have just proved evolution is a farce as well as obliterating th OP, why I think it does, I'm freaken brilliant.

Love youss and God bless yousssssssss

I speak English good so member dat in da future when it coms to discussuing fings like langugae and not sciences.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 09-15-2010 12:47 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 09-15-2010 10:07 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2344 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 227 of 295 (581505)
09-15-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by ringo
09-15-2010 8:03 PM


Re: What version is the correct
Im sorry are you in support of the OP or opposed to it?

This question will give you an indication as to precisely how well you are communicating your ideas to me. Please clarify.

Thank you (In plain English if you dodn't mind) I don't speak Hebrew or Greek - throw me a fricken bone here.

While your at please explain to me what "default chronology" means, but only if you think some one as daft as me will be able to understand you.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.

Edited by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by ringo, posted 09-15-2010 8:03 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by ringo, posted 09-15-2010 10:26 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 28842
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 228 of 295 (581511)
09-15-2010 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-15-2010 9:38 PM


Re: capitals and multiple heavens
What evidences is in the bible precisely?

Please clarify what you mean by that if you don't mind. I'm not tracking where your coming from.

And I'm not sure what you are asking.

The message you replied to was in response to a claim that something in Genesis 1 implied a couple heavens with one meant to be where God was going to put his throne and live. I was simply asking where that could be found in Genesis 1.

What evidence is in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 is a snap shot of how different people in different cultures and eras viewed their world. It is the story of authors and cultures and editors and redactors and committees of Canon.

The big question for me, and a major step in understanding the Bible, came from questioning what many different committees of Canon decided to include two stories that touch, even indirectly, on creation even though they are filled with conflicting and mutually exclusive tales.

Understanding developed over many years, decades even.

Why did they include two stories?

Why did they place the younger, newer tale before the older tale?

Why didn't they merge the tales together like they did with the at least two, more likely three, Flood myths?

Why didn't they edit the material to eliminate the conflicts, the discrepancies, fix up the mistakes?

Why did the redactors who were certainly capable of reading include not only two different, mutually exclusive stories, but went a step further and placed the younger story first is a good one? Why did they include two stories of Creation that exclude each other, if one is true the other is false?

That should be one of the first clues for readers.

They include both stories because creation is not really what the stories are about. Creation is simply a plot device, a tool to use to talk about what was really important to the story tellers.

They put the younger story first because it served as a introduction, a wide angle view from afar, that shows a Transcendent God that oversees everything. That beginning, that opening shot, let the authors talk about what was really important, that GOD is the source of all, and that we should take one day off out of seven. But that God was also impersonal, separate, not interacting with its creation.

They then combined several of the older tales from a time when folk saw God as just a super human. Again, creation is but a plot device to allow them to present a different view of god, a kindler gentler god, one with many human limitations and weaknesses, one that is somewhat fumbling and unsure, fearful and limited, but also intimate, solid, chatty, companionable.

The plot devices in the rest of the story allowed the authors to get to other material that they thought important, why man had to work as a farmer instead of simply foraging like other animals, why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems harder and more painful for humans. It is a "Just So" story that helped explain man's relationship with man, that women were subject to man, that we were a social morality based society as opposed to an amoral society like the other animals.

And that seems to be the point of this thread.

Why did the redactors include two obviously mutually exclusive and contradictory creation myths?

I believe they had good reason, the stories let them discuss the other subjects that they felt important.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-15-2010 9:38 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 10:28 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 229 of 295 (581513)
09-15-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-15-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Oh yay, another one.
.Hi NOMA,

NOMA writes:

You seem to be implying that I am not "spiritually discerning" the scripture here. I fundamentally take umbrage at that remark.

When I said:

ICANT writes:

A lot of people think an education or a degree qualifies them to understand the Bible. But the Bible declares that it is spiritually deserned.

I was implying nothing other than you are discussing this subject with a lot of very educated people who think their education is all they need to understand the Bible.

If you fit in that catagory then I would have to include you.

NOMA writes:

literal fundamentalist"

Definitions:

Literal = Adherence to the explicit text or doctrine as recorded.

Fundamentalist = Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to an established set of basic principles.

I use the KJV Bible as it is the best English version we have. Is it perfect? No, that is the reason I spent so many years studying Greek and Hebrew so I would not have to settle for what someone else says it says.

I practice what is taught in the Bible beginning with the two commandments given by Jesus. I believe as John 3:18 teaches that a person is condemned because they have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

I also believe and practice the doctrines taught by Paul.

Now if that does not make me a literal fundamentalist I don't know the definition of one.

NOMA writes:

Honestly I'm not particularly interested in "debating" a non negotiable non debatable topic much further,

You haven't started debating yet. Neither has those who have been replying to you.

Nobody is affirming and nobody is refuting. Everybody is on their hobby horse preaching their message.

In the OP it is presented that the orders in the stories found in Genesis chapter 1 and 2 are different.

They are, because they are about two different events at two different times in eternity.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-15-2010 6:08 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-15-2010 10:46 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13031
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 230 of 295 (581514)
09-15-2010 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-15-2010 9:46 PM


Re: What version is the correct
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:

Im sorry are you in support of the OP or opposed to it?


I have no axe to grind. I don't particularly care whether the OP stands or falls but I think it has been well-supported in the thread. I don't think it has been refuted.

NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:

While your at please explain to me what "default chronology" means, but only if you think some one as daft as me will be able to understand you.


The default chronology is the one you use when none is specified. As you and several others before you have pointed out, Genesis 1 has an explicit chronology built into it but Genesis 2 does not.

However, you and several others before you make the mistake of assuming a priori that the two accounts must tally so the chronology of Genesis 1 applies. Unfortunately, there is no reason to make that assumption.

In English and in Hebrew, when no chronology is specified, the order of narration is considered to be the order of events. If you want to claim that that is not true for Genesis 2, you have to provide compelling evidence for that claim. A desire to make the two accounts coincide does not count as evidence.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-15-2010 9:46 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-15-2010 10:44 PM ringo has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 231 of 295 (581515)
09-15-2010 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by jar
09-15-2010 10:07 PM


Re: capitals and multiple heavens
Hi jar,

Read your questions and thought I would answer them.

jar writes:

Why did they include two stories?

Because they were about two different events.

jar writes:

Why did they place the younger, newer tale before the older tale?

Because some copyist thought that is where it should go.

jar writes:

Why didn't they merge the tales together like they did with the at least two, more likely three, Flood myths?

Because they were not about one event. Besides God said He would preserve His word.

jar writes:

Why didn't they edit the material to eliminate the conflicts, the discrepancies, fix up the mistakes?

There are no conflicts or discrepancies in the two stories. So there is no mistakes to fix up.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 09-15-2010 10:07 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2344 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 232 of 295 (581520)
09-15-2010 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by ringo
09-15-2010 10:26 PM


Re: What version is the correct
In that case it would appear that what you are saying is in stark contradiction of itself.

But since you have no axe to grind and still won't admit the obvious I see no point in dancing around and round the mulbury bush with you.

I am sincerely happy that your enjoying yourself. Thats the main thing init? Making some nice little sand castles and stuff. good on ya.

You'll find me around drawing circles in the sand from here on in. (which is what I should have stuck too after my first post - silly me huh? DOH!!)

Id like to say it's been nice chatting with you but that would be dishonest of me.

Love

From me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by ringo, posted 09-15-2010 10:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by ringo, posted 09-15-2010 10:59 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2344 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 09-14-2010


Message 233 of 295 (581521)
09-15-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by ICANT
09-15-2010 10:16 PM


Re: Oh yay, another one.
With all due respect brother - Rubbish, I refuted the OP yesturday evening. See posts 170 and 171. I'm done with this thread.

Re defining yourself as literal fundamentalist, I would have to say we are on the same page with your defination but possibily not on the exact same paragraph, but that's no big thing.

Where I fundamentally disagree with you is that the OP in question does not require any form of spirtual discernment to quickly and ably refute the nonsense suggestion that is being made in it. A simple reading ability of an 11 year old would suffice. There is nothing of scientific or scholarly biblical significance taking place in this thread.

And trainspotters using terms like "Primary supporting evidence" "Default Chronologyi" and "Pirori" in italix if you please - ain't gonna change that huh?

God bless you.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by ICANT, posted 09-15-2010 10:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Admin, posted 09-16-2010 5:13 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 13031
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 234 of 295 (581525)
09-15-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-15-2010 10:44 PM


Re: What version is the correct
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:

In that case it would appear that what you are saying is in stark contradiction of itself.


Please be specific. Explain any contradiction that you see. As you said yourself, it might just be your misunderstanding.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-15-2010 10:44 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 235 of 295 (581527)
09-16-2010 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-15-2010 10:46 PM


Noma Suspended 24 Hours
Hi Noma,

The Forum Guidelines request that discussion participants maintain civil discourse, stay focused on the topic, support their positions with evidence and argument, follow moderator requests, and in general work toward moving the discussion constructively forward. Because you're ignoring the Forum Guidelines as well as moderator requests to adhere to the Forum Guidelines I'm suspending you for 24 hours.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-15-2010 10:46 PM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 236 of 295 (581537)
09-16-2010 7:23 AM


Back on Track
This is an attempt to get this thread back on track. (We all got caught up in the title and not the position presented by the OP. )

This thread is not a discussion about whether there are contradictions between Gen 1 and Gen 2 or whether the stories are scientifically accurate.

This discussion is about whether the contradictions presented by the originator disproves that the Bible is inerrant.

hepteract writes:

This contradiction seems to debunk the inerrancy of the bible. This thread is to provide a place for debate as to whether or not it actually does.

His position is:

hepteract writes:

My point of view is that if the creation story is not reliable, any book of the bible quoting creation or stating scriptural infallibility is unreliable, any book quoting those books is unreliable, and so on.

Participants, please adjust accordingly. Also remember that it is your responsibility to refrain from responding to off topic posts.

Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.

Thank you
AdminPD Purple

Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.


greyseal
Member (Idle past 1276 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 237 of 295 (581544)
09-16-2010 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Joseppi
09-15-2010 12:21 PM


Re: Chronology
Hi Joseppi,

I said

quote:
No, there's no magical forces, but gravity (whilst the weakest of the four known forces) certainly is powerful enough to pull planets together

and you said

The error is again quite obvious.

..oh do tell

quote:
Gravity is the weakest force known. It can't pull together any dispersed matter that has more powerful forces acting upon them.

well...yeah. no weaker force can resist a stronger force if the two are acting in an equivalent manner...

The most notable being HEAT.
The orbiting of the sun, the attraction of the planets is due to the lumped sum value of their constituent matter. and, that is not the situation before there were such clumps of matter.

A small question, of minor consequence...if we're talking about a primal solar system with no major clumps of matter...where's the sun?

And I presume you know how heat acts differently from gravity, yes? And that heat doesn't travel all that well in a vaccuum? and that heat could act as a catalyst for matter to start accumulating into "clumps" by pushing on some matter in the light but not on matter in the shade?

Basically, if heat were so powerful as to prevent gravity from attracting, then we wouldn't be here as our planet would have been blasted apart...

There is no known force by which one can explain the condensation of matter from a cloud into a clump.

sir isaac newton would disagree, for its name is gravity.

Heat alone will disperse the cloud as is common experience concerning any kind of cloud. The vector momentum of the particles after cooling will not change since the attraction between greatly dispersed particles is of no consequence.

clouds on a planet, in air, are a massively different thing from clouds in space in vaccuum. Don't forget, we're also talking about billions of years ago when the sun was not yet ignited.

If there is no sun to produce heat to prevent matter from falling together due to gravity, then why would it not occur?

You may say that the gravitational attraction between greatly dispersed particles is of no consequence, but you would be wrong. It took trillions of years to form our solar system, up against that scale our sun is a brief candle. Up against our sun, our planet is a newcomer. Up against our planet, life is a relatively modern occurence. Up against life itself, some 3 billion years ago, intelligent life has been around for the tiniest of moments. And your life - or mine? We don't even register on the scales you're trying to imagine.

Try to understand - gravity is universal. Heat is local.

***

Edit: this shouldn't be in this thread as it is not directly about the OP. It's somewhat relevant though if you ponder how what we know of the universe doesn't relate to what's in the bible about the creation of the world.

The order (and there's two genesis tales) is all wrong in any event. You might claim that genesis isn't a scientific explanation of how it happened, and it's not, but are we to believe that Adam was a real person and not just some archetype?

If we don't believe that creation happened in either of the two ways (because it's not a word-for-word recital) then why should we believe Adam existed? and if we don't believe in Adam, we doubt the lineage (shaky as it is) which leads to Jesus. And if we doubt jesus' lineage, then who is he?

The whole thing falls apart like a house of cards. This is why some people have such a hard time with reality - the more specific they try to be about their faith, the easier it is to refute their claims. The more vague they are, the less relevance there is to modern-day life.

it's a lose-lose situation.

Edited by greyseal, : attempting to put it on topic a bit more.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Joseppi, posted 09-15-2010 12:21 PM Joseppi has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5577
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 238 of 295 (581579)
09-16-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by hepteract
06-25-2010 2:48 PM


Re: Back to the OP
Hi hepteract and anyone else who cares to comment.

hepteract writes:

Once again, the orders are as such: Genesis 1: Animals, Plants, Man & Woman. Genesis 2: Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.

This contradiction seems to debunk the inerrancy of the bible. This thread is to provide a place for debate as to whether or not it actually does.

There are no contradictions.

Genesis 1:2-2:3 is a story of what has been refered to as the events known as "Seven days of Moses".

Genesis 2:4-4:24 is the history of what took place in the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.

These two separate events took place billions if not trillions of years apart in duration as we call time. Source

God Bless,

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 2:48 PM hepteract has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by greyseal, posted 09-16-2010 2:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 1276 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 239 of 295 (581599)
09-16-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ICANT
09-16-2010 12:24 PM


Re: Back to the OP
Genesis 1:2-2:3 is a story of what has been refered to as the events known as "Seven days of Moses".

Genesis 2:4-4:24 is the history of what took place in the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth.

that doesn't make sense, unless you're saying that god had to recreate everything (including the plants, waters, and so on - and that Adam wasn't the first man).

Please explain why it's not contradictory. There would have to have been some sort of huge catastrophy between the two if they weren't, and the fact such a thing isn't mentioned sounds pretty contradictory itself.

I'm sorry, I don't understand.

OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2010 12:24 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by purpledawn, posted 09-17-2010 7:20 AM greyseal has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 872 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 240 of 295 (581719)
09-17-2010 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by greyseal
09-16-2010 2:48 PM


Inerrancy
It doesn't matter whether one feels the stories are contradictory or not, the issue at hand is whether the differences that the originator mentioned disproves that the Bible is inerrant which is a doctrinal position. (Doctrine of Inerrancy)

He also feels that any reference to these unreliable writings with errors also makes those writings unreliable.

My position is that the stories weren't created to go together. Each author had a different point to make to his audience. The redactor that "stitched" them together also had his own purpose for doing so. These stories are foundational myths that weren't written as factual accounts. They need to be understood as they were written. If we change the purpose, then it is our own fault if they don't hold up to the new standard set.

I also don't feel that any reference to these stories makes the author's work unreliable. Again, we have to understand the point the writer is making by referencing the stories. As I said in Message 3:

A non fiction book quoting a fictional book or character does not automatically make the non fictional book unreliable. It depends on what is being presented and the reason for the quote or reference.

Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by greyseal, posted 09-16-2010 2:48 PM greyseal has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2010 3:50 PM purpledawn has responded

RewPrev1
...
1415
16
17181920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017