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

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

This has nothing to do with Evolution. It is simply that the stories in Gen 1 & Gen 2 are mutually exclusive.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Jman,Welcome to EvC. I for one and I'm not alone find it very difficult to read long paragraphs, something about the white on blue? I don't know but breaking a long stretch of writing up with blank lines really helps.Try reading your long paragraph and then try breaking it up into small units and see it it isn't easier. Just a tip but it will help you to have a somewhat wider readership.lfen

I see what you mean OK thanks

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

There are a couple things we frown on around here. One is major edits to a post after there are responses that change the content or meaning, UNLESS, the original part is left intact and the additions are clearly noted. Usually that is done by posting AbE (added by edit) before the new content.Minor edits to correct spelling or add a missing word, for formatting and such are fine, as long as the added word did not change the meanings. For example if I went back and edited "I do believe in GOD" to "I do not believe in GOD", that should be noted as an edit in the message.

---

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

If you are going to be this sensitive then you are going to have a large problem here. AdminJar was in no way disrespectful.Others will, occasionally, cross the line to greater and lessor extents in the heat of discussion. It would take a very, very much greater hint of disrespect to trigger an admins involvement than one could possibly construe from AJ's comment.Generally, if you ignore minor transgressions and work extra hard to be respectful yourself then the majority here will be respectful in return.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 04-09-2006 03:41 PM

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

It is as a rule on all weboards that you do not edit posts after people have responded to you, as to not confuse readers as to what you said.it is also as a rule on the internet and web-boards not to type in caps, it is taken as shouting if you did not know that.
nor is it considered good mannors to yell at the admins or upbraid them for doing thier jobs
it is obvious that jar is right and you need to thicken your skin a bit

I found Jar's language completely professional. Not sure why you find the phraseology "we frown upon" to be insulting, condecending, or in any other way unprofessional. You just didn't read carefully enough:

quote:

---

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.

---

"Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence." Not, "address rebuttals through redaction of the original post." It's right there in the rules. If you have a response to rebuttals, it should be the introduction of new evidence, not the editing of your old. I think you'll find that the internet is a place where age, creed, race, sex, or even nationality don't exist. Our value here is the value of our argument; the respect we gain is the respect our arguments deserve.If you expect Jar or any of the other admins to have known of your age before they posted, you're simply not familiar with the technologies at work here. And if you demand that they modify their behavior now after the knowledge of your age, it's incumbent on you to provide a convincing argument why.And before you go off in another huff about lecturing to the elders, think carefully. I might be 80; Jar and Nosy might be 90. Any one of us here might be your elder. And wouldn't it be your place, then, to show us more respect?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-09-2006 06:19 PM

Erm, not to be a pest or anything, but what was the topic here again? Shouldn't the last several posts be on one of the moderation threads? I know I haven't been around much lately, but I'm pretty sure the place hasn't changed that much...

Jman and others responding to AdminJar's Mod message and Jman's responses, please take comments to the moderation thread listed below.Any responses to this moderation post, please take to the moderation thread listed below.Carry on with the original topic.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

So are we to understand that your way of reconciling the two stories is to invent an entirely new one that is equally as baseless?Trék