What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

There are two stories of the creation. So many of us automatically pick up the protestant bible thinking nothing of the fact that anything having to do with the Roman Church was taken out during the new codification. It was unfortunate that the Roman Church was a political entity as well as a church entity. Anyway take a look at the Catholic Bible and you'll see what it all looked like before the changes.Also, there are some more related ideas in my postings. If you go to my profile and look at them. For what's worth, I believe the greatest gift from God is the one most often denied. Our minds.

oops! Jman my alter ego has stepped in and... well there goes the neighborhood. You guys will have to look at message 138 to see the new and improved response.This message has been edited by Jman, 04-08-2006 11:50 PM

The two stories of creation do not seem to agree with each other. That fact (if it really is a fact) seems to agrue against the infallibility of the Bible.I think I will support the version which agrees more with the known facts which support the evolution theory.This message has been edited by Jacob, 04-07-2006 11:10 PM

First came the animals, then man.This message has been edited by Jacob, 04-07-2006 11:05 PM

Hi everyone from JmanI have decided to redo my response to the question. It seems that I got a little carried away the first time and attracted some incoming. I mean it was worse than Nam! I'll have to admit that when I wrote that I had spent the entire day before in church drinking holy water. Well that wasn't too bad but on this particular day the incense was really strong. I got quite a buzz. I knew I shoulda been a protestant.....But seriously I do have an opinion regarding the reconcilliation of those two stories.The first is the closest and seems more representative of a good creation of the Earth story so I like this one best. It does conflict with the E theory but that is not part of the question. The second story seems to talk about something different. Here's how I see it. I think we've all heard reference to a tale which tells about spiritual humans being originally in "heaven" but then "falling" and ending up on Earth. If not check with the Mormons. It is my belief that this may be fact and that the second story may tell about these events. Perhaps the author, who cannot have been God or else it would have been perfectly clear, unmistakeable and unassailable, did not know it was in spirit that these human "archtypes" existed. I guess it doesn't matter does it? Anyway, in heaven, being told not to do something (the apple tree bit) was a warning to A&E that if they weren't careful they would lose heaven and have to become physical beings bound to struggle and suffer the rest of their lives on forty acres with a muleosaur (this is pretty close to what we do right?) Then being convicted of "biting the apple" means they saw the physical Earth to be cool, desired those experiences and, being suckered out by snakeman, opted for the dirt of the Earth. So being booted from the garden means they got what they wanted or deserved, or that which was God's plan all along. In any case it was a bummer of the first magnitude. The only other thing I'll add here is that when these two, the first real humans (real because they were the first to have human souls {God's image}) arrived on the planet they found it to be populated with people (primative yet evolved to a certain degree and pretty much ready to be true humans) already. This is nice because the Earth is full of fossils of these heavy browed guys even though the Bible doesn't talk about them but God must have put them there right? I mean if He didn't who did? And also because Cain had to have a wife to co-whatever with and this scenario supports the facts given us in day six of the first creation story as well. You know, the part where men and women go forth and subdue the Earth....No matter what the true sequence of events was we must certainly agree that there WAS A SEQUENCE beginning with creation and reaching, step by step, to the ending of Genesis. I refuse to listen to the standard litanys pertaining to these questions which are served up on Sundays. Like "dullsville"Please consider my statement. To those who ask for scriptual references in support of postulates let me say that it is scripture which confuses us in the first place so best we wing it and think for ourselves!Finally chapters one and two are in agreement if only faith does not prevent us from thinking.I'd like to know what the QUESTIONER thinks of these possibilities. Literary critics please dial 1-800-take-a-number-and be-seated.Signed: Jman of.... Gosh I forgot where I'm from. Well last week I was definately somewhere in outer space.. For sure dudes.

I see what you mean OK thanks

Jar yeah but my answer needs a little E talk for continuity.

Forum Guidelines1. Follow all moderator requests.2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.3. When introducing a new topic, please keep the message narrowly focused. Do not include more than a few points.4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.9. Do not participate as more than one ID. You may change your user ID by going to your Profile Page and creating a new alias.10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.I would say that in accordance with rule number one your request is OK but in future please keep in mind the first sentence of rule 10. It is quite unnecessary to use language like: "we frown upon" when asking for a change as you do.Jman

I expect anything from other forum members and from them its OK but from the folks who administrate I expect professionalism and nothing less.In future if you use such manner of speech you must expect the same in return. Further I am nearly 70 years of age and will not be lectured by you regarding respect.If you care for a personal direct conversation let me know. If not kindly keep to the rules of this forum, as I try to do when I know them IN ADVANCE.FOR OTHER FORUMERS THIS DISCUSSION IS REGARDS ADMIN TELLING ME ABOUT A "RULE" WHICH IS NOT SPECIFICALLY GIVEN IN THE TEN RULES AS POSTED IN THE FORUM RULES SECTION.THEY ARE KIND ENOUGH TO USE PHRASEOLOGY SUCH AS: "WE FROWN ON" BECAUSE I MADE BIG CHANGES TO A POSTING OF MINE WITHOUT LEAVING THE ORIGINAL ONE IN PLACE. WELL I TOOK A LOOK AT THE RULES AND SAW NO MENTION OF ANY SUCH RULE SO IF THIS IS THE CASE IT IS DISCOURTEOUS OF THEM IN THE EXTREME TO RAG ABOUT IT.I HAVE NOTED THAT THERE ARE MANY MATURE ADMIN TYPES BUT ONE OR TWO CHILDREN WHO SEEM A BIT PETULANT AND POWER CRAZED. THE ROLE OF ANY ADMINISTRATOR IS TO GUIDE AND ASSIST BUT NEVER TO DEMEAN.SO WHEN I CALLED ADMIN ON THIS HARD RESPONSE OF THEIRS I WAS INFORMED THAT IF I AM THAT SENSITIVE I WILL HAVE PROBLEMS ON THIS NET. THE ONLY PROBLEM I'VE HAD SO FAR WAS FROM ADMIN.YOU GUYS ARE THEIR TO HELP NOT TO BULLY. BE PROFESSIONAL PLEASE.JMAN

Invicts...Here we have two stories of creation. No one knows if either is true or false or if any of the parts of either could be true or false.Only those who accept what is put before them with "faith" do not question. The rest of us look for answers. Perhaps there is something to all of it. And what will athesists do? I don't know. I am a non-religious thesist.If we ever resolve the issue of creation we will see that the solution will probably contain many of the elements of both original stories. Such is usually the case. (here I refer to historical investigation of myth) There will be changes, additions, deletions and the time line will be adjusted for clarity.The enquiring mind will not hastily dismiss the notions and proposals of others. Each attempt brings us a little closer to truth.In a stream of "disconnected" story bits it is perhaps possible that much is missing that if known, would shed a little light. It is by this kind of thinking that discoveries have been made in the past.The anti-thesis to this is to simply declare that the words of others are no more than "baseless inventions" without, I might add, explaining exactly why they are so?I don't mind critism if it is accompanied by alternative answers. If all one does is "nay say" then one must go away and be quiet for they are adding nothing to the discussion. I doubt the others of which you speak when you say: "are we to understand" will mind.In closing please let me remind you that the original topical question was something like: "What is the best explanation of Genesis you have heard....".
Given the question, my answer is quite within acceptable limits.OK so please, let's all hear what you have to say on the matter. What are your views on Genesis? Come ahead and open up a little. I won't denigrate your attempts to explain things.Jman