Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 301 of 307 (318147)
06-05-2006 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by 2ice_baked_taters
06-05-2006 10:44 AM


It is obvious that the main goal of any religious text is to teach metaphorical lessons where facts are but window dressing for the meanings to be conveyed. Let us say that the bible for arguements sake was complete hisotrical fiction. It would in no way invalidate the many time tested values and lessons it teaches that still hold true today. To discuss any work of such value in a purely factual framework and use that to vlaidate or invalidate the lessons meant to be conveyed
is simply ignoring the entire point of why the text emerged in the first place.
That is what the bible literalists miss in the first place. Trying to
make many of the stories into the bible as literal/historical facts causes 2/3's of the meaning to be ignored.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 06-05-2006 10:44 AM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by dennis780, posted 05-11-2010 9:23 PM ramoss has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 302 of 307 (559691)
05-11-2010 4:52 AM


Thread Reopened By Request
This thread has been reopened per request.
Please refer to Message 1 for a refresher on the topic.
Please do not respond to any old off topic posts.
Thanks
AdminPD

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 303 of 307 (559856)
05-11-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by truthlover
01-22-2004 9:06 AM


contradictory...
Hmm, I fail to see what is so confusing about chapter 2 of Genesis. But I would like to make a few points here.
The first chapter describes the creation by God. In the second chapter, God breathes life into Adam. Adam was created already, in Gods image. In the second chapter, God breathes life into him, and puts him in the garden of Eden. Now, where he was before, I`m unsure.
Can someone elaborate on the question more for me.
There is a very important point to make here about YEC, and OEC. The biblical account of the creation of the earth must be accurate. There are two very important reasons for this, especially if you call yourself a christian.
Firstly, Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that brought sin into the world. If this is a metaphor, rather than a physical truth, then Adam did NOT bring sin into the world, and since sin is not mentioned as being brought in anywhere else in the bible, Jesus had no reason to die on the cross, because sin isn`t real. As well, eating of the tree caused death on earth. People dying worldwide of old age should show you that this is accurate (remember, I`m speaking only to those who call themselves christians, as this is a mega stretch for any evolutionist, and I wouldn`t expect them to accept anything of the previous statement).
The second is that, if you are a christian, God is all powerful. And the biblical account of the beginning of life is through God alone. If life came about by random natural occurances (I can`t wait to find the thread for this subject), then God didn`t cause life, he simply supervised a natural process.
So where does this leave us.....sin isn`t real, and God is not associated with all life and death on earth.
Sounds like an atheist to me.
Responses welcome (again, bear in mind that these points are ment to question Old Earth Creationists, not evolutionists).
Dennis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by truthlover, posted 01-22-2004 9:06 AM truthlover has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 304 of 307 (559861)
05-11-2010 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by ramoss
06-05-2006 9:28 PM


`It is obvious that the main goal of any religious text is to teach metaphorical lessons where facts are but window dressing for the meanings to be conveyed. Let us say that the bible for arguements sake was complete hisotrical fiction. It would in no way invalidate the many time tested values and lessons it teaches that still hold true today. To discuss any work of such value in a purely factual framework and use that to vlaidate or invalidate the lessons meant to be conveyed`
Firstly, there is evidence supporting some of the many unbelievable stories in the bible, such as the chariot wheels uncovered in the sand bar that runs across the Red Sea, and the boat (possibly the ark, but not certain) found at the base of Mount Ararat, just like the Bible claims in Genesis (however the biblical account is much more broad, saying that the ark came to rest in the mountainS of Ararat).
I DO agree that many books of the bible less than physical accounts of physical things (revelations is the most prominent, and the most often mis-interpreted).
However, in general, the bible is nothing more than visual accounts of Gods` workings here on earth. Daniel in the lions den, David and Goliath, the crucifixion, etc., are physical observations made by real men. Though these things are unbelievable, the things that God does would be, and should be, as the laws of nature and science would not apply to him.
The big question I suppose to everyone here would be, was Jesus a physical factual person, who was the Son of God, or is the crucifixion story ment to teach moral standards to humans...because aside from all other disagreements christians have with each other (and there are many), the Bible is crystal clear that through the blood of Jesus Christ alone does one enter heaven.
I suppose if you believe Jesus was a metaphor, your soul, based on biblical teachings, should metaphorically go to hell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by ramoss, posted 06-05-2006 9:28 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-12-2010 1:40 AM dennis780 has replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 305 of 307 (559893)
05-12-2010 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by dennis780
05-11-2010 9:23 PM


Hi, and welcome to EvC!
dennis780 writes:
The big question I suppose to everyone here would be,
Not just to OECs? Well, it's actually a bit off-topic here, but okay, I'll take a stab at it...
was Jesus a physical factual person,
I dunno, could'a been.
who was the Son of God,
God is an implausible and ill-defined concept. "Son of God" simply expands the implausibility.
or is the crucifixion story ment to teach moral standards to humans...
What sort of "moral standards" are taught by the crucifixion story? Really, this baffles me. I can see getting moral standards from the Sermon on the Mount -- for sure, parts of that are clear, positively sensible, inspiring, very much worth emulating -- no argument. But the crucifixion? Nothing I'd want to emulate there...
in general, the bible is nothing more than visual accounts of Gods` workings here on earth.
Um, no, actually, in general the bible is nothing more than the agreed-upon (by one or another committee of authors and editors) written record of a much older oral tradition. In the case of the OT, the oral tradition was promulgated over many generations before a writing system was established by the Hebrews to "ossify" the narrative and preserved it from further "elaboration"; it is a "visual" account in the same way that Gilgamesh is a "visual" account -- considering that Gilgamesh and the bible cover some of the same stories, but from different points of view. This isn't any sort of "direct observation" we're talking about here. Especially so for those first two chapters of Genesis (ah! back to the topic, almost).
In the case of the NT, the time span between the events being described and the composition of the text is considerably shorter, but there was still plenty of time for embellishment and invention regarding "events" that were never (could not have been) directly observed by the authors -- e.g. the virgin birth. (I gather that the doctrine of the virgin birth is not something on which all Christians agree -- but that's off-topic here. My apologies.)
{Added-by-Edit:}
I suppose if you believe Jesus was a metaphor, your soul, based on biblical teachings, should metaphorically go to hell.
And what if I believe that the soul (defined as some aspect of my individual existence that is immortal) is just another myth, like God and hell? No worries, eh? Please bear in mind that accepting/dismissing belief in an immortal soul has nothing at all to do with what we normally refer to as morality/ethics. There's nothing metaphorical about the latter, and they do exist independently of religious belief. (But again, that's for another thread, not in a Science Forum like this one.)
Edited by Otto Tellick, : as noted in text

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by dennis780, posted 05-11-2010 9:23 PM dennis780 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 2:54 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

dennis780
Member (Idle past 4776 days)
Posts: 288
From: Alberta
Joined: 05-11-2010


Message 306 of 307 (559903)
05-12-2010 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Otto Tellick
05-12-2010 1:40 AM


"I dunno, could'a been."
Then you `coulda` go to heaven. lol.
`What sort of "moral standards" are taught by the crucifixion story? Really, this baffles me.`
Sacrfice for the greater good is a puzzling concept hey...you poor soul. I hope you don`t plan on having kids. I`m willing to bet you would throw them under the bus to save your own butt.
`This isn't any sort of "direct observation" we're talking about here. Especially so for those first two chapters of Genesis (ah! back to the topic, almost).`
Well, since books previous to Jesus` told of his coming, I suppose this would have been an educated guess
Okay. I need to interupt here for a minute. Can someone tell me why my keyboard doesn`t let me use quotations or question marks...all I get is this bs `` ```.
Sorry. Where was I. Right. I don`t know if you have bothered to read the bible, but many of the books written from different time periods relate to each other (the mark of the beast talked about in Daniel and Revelations for example). Daniel lived before Jesus, and Revelations was a dream given to John after jesus` death (man that keyboard thing is driving me crazy).
` but there was still plenty of time for embellishment and invention regarding "events" that were never (could not have been) directly observed by the authors`
I agree. But since the birth of Jesus is prophecied in the OT as well, I don`t understand how men living at different periods of time could collaborate their efforts (without time machines).
It`s important to note that some of the stories in the bible are geographically accurate. If these were made up by 40 different authors, then perhaps there would be much more conflict than Genesis 1 and 2 (which actually don`t conflict with each other at all).
Physical support for the stories told in the bible such as the red sea crossing (chariot wheels in the water and inscriptions in the rocks at shore) show us that at LEAST some of the stories have evidence supporting them. This physical evidence is also true with Mount Sinai (hope thats spelled right), that is burned at the top, and drawings at the base of the mountain of Moses breaking the tablets with men in the background worshiping a golden calf.
` has nothing at all to do with what we normally refer to as morality/ethics.`
HEY for once we agree. The fact is that Morality is subjective, and more a matter of personal opinion. I do not believe the bible was intended to teach anything of the sort. If there is a god, and he happens to be the Christian one, then my morality and your morality mean very little, since God has laid out the ground rules, and whether or not you think it`s morally acceptable to kill is irrelevant to Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Otto Tellick, posted 05-12-2010 1:40 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by AdminPD, posted 05-12-2010 7:52 PM dennis780 has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 307 of 307 (560040)
05-12-2010 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by dennis780
05-12-2010 2:54 AM


Closing Thread
Since the topic isn't really being addressed and there is a new topic started: Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2, I'm closing this thread again.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 2:54 AM dennis780 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024