|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard? | |||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Your going to 'get it' after all. considering that i am a theistic evolutionist, i think you have less argument with me than you think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Was anything you said factual, and if so, it is all meanignless to me...
You think this... I think that. Well, then go away and keep your pivacy private. Personally I believe in community. Any biters in the stream?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5877 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
considering that i am a theistic evolutionist, i think you have less argument with me than you think.
Very good! I was too for a long time, so yes we are very near each other. ok got to run boys and girls, duty calls. I enjoy the discussions...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Everyone, please get back to the topic and stop the short useless posts.
Remember argue the position and not the person. Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread. Thank you |
|||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 640 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Back on topic, if evolution is true, the Bible is false! I tried to get around it for a long time by personally viewing Genesis as more symbolism and metaphor than fact. But I was against the wall, and was totally unprepaired for the philosophical clarity of the intelligent design arguments.
The misreprentations of fact, logical fallacies, ignoring evidence that does not match a predetermined conclusion is not 'philosophical clarity'. In the 'intelligence design' area, this can be demonstratedto you in precise detail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
2ice_baked_taters writes:
and
Facts have no meaning. 2ice_baked_taters writes:
I now see that you were talking of metaphoric meaning, and of other kinds of secondary meaning. I would say that in light of the general weight of meaning that any religious text was meant to convey, thus far this topic has been devoid of anything meaningful and to me quite pointless and absurd. I wish you had made that clear in the first place. Facts are inherently meaningful, so your apparent statements to the contrary come across as obviously wrong. However, if you were referring to secondary meaning, then you might have a point. Let's connect this back to the topic we are supposed to be discussing. The Genesis 1 and 2 stories, even though factually false, can indeed have important secondary meanings. Note: I use "secondary" with respect to the way language works. What I am calling a secondary meaning could still be what the author(s) intended as their primary meaning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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. Note: I use "secondary" with respect to the way language works. What I am calling a secondary meaning could still be what the author(s) intended as their primary meaning. Yes...language and it's use conveys the meaning. However, one must note that regardless of a general intended meaning the interpretationsreflect what the individual relates to and searches for. Despite this people as a whole share many of the same basic valuable life shaping interpretations. This often crosses religious borders and seems to reflect basic values we gravitate to as a whole of humanity. There are many "genesis" stories. In all that I have heard the facts are window dressing to the meanings meant to be conveyed. The meaning moral/life shaping lessons are the purpose and surely how they were meant to be viewed and discussed. This is the primary function. To make us think about the meaning of life if you will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
vitalprikalist Inactive Member |
There are no problems with these chapters. Animals were created first. Then, when man was created, God created the animals in front of man so that he could name them. Also, since God created the animals in front of Adam, satan couldn't come in and claim to have been the creator. That is why satan went after Eve first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Animals were created first. Then, when man was created, God created the animals in front of man so that he could name them. Does this mean the animals were created twice? It helps to rid the contradiction, but only to bring up another question: why make animals twice? Why make them before Man and then after Man? Certainly just making Man first to start with would accomplish what you say here:
...since God created the animals in front of Adam, satan couldn't come in and claim to have been the creator. And then we wouldn't need the extra creation of animals.
That is why satan went after Eve first. That's a very interesting point of view. For now, I can't see much wrong with it. Despite the rest of your message, this part seems like it just might hold some water. Trék
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Teets_Creationist Inactive Member |
Let me tell you first, I am new, and read only some of the other arguments, so if I am saying something here someone else said, I didn't see it. But I do find it funny that this is an issue. This whole debate can be settled with a DICTIONARY. Now I know this may be hard for some, but you must think like a literalist, and actually read the Gen. 1 and 2 chapters literally. Check out the definitions on the words CREATED, MADE, and FORMED. No where in Chapter 2 does it say that God again CREATED the animals, it says that He FORMED the animals. Creation was all in Chapter 1, also the word MADE was used, meaning the same as CREATED. I am not quoting any scripture in my reply, nor am I giving the definitions of those words. I am making you look them up yourself. Anyone who really wants the answer, will do the research. If you don't, then you just like arguing! I am using a KJV Bible, so that you can look up the same and see what I am seeing. If you don't have a Bible, there are many online. I am not doing any research for you guys, just pointing out that this is a non-issue, and how to see it as a literalist. Summary:
Genesis chapter 1, CREATED or MADE, Genesis chapter 2, FORMED. You may choose to keep your opinion of a non-literal Bible, but there is no controversy here, if you are reading literally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Genesis chapter 1, CREATED or MADE, Genesis chapter 2, FORMED. Those are synonyms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Create 1. transitive verb make something: to bring something into existence Made artificially produced: produced by artificial means form to begin to exist or to make something begin to exist So..em..God created the animals but em.. they didn't exist until genesis 2? Is that what you are saying?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If you bring the arguement to the table, you need the evidence. You can't bring up the arguement and tell us to go find evidence supporting your opinion!
Nevertheless:
Check out the definitions on the words CREATED, MADE, and FORMED. quote: quote: quote: Any chance you could tell us which definition you're using? And please, say what you have to say AND add your evidence. We're running out of posts. Trék
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
vitalprikalist writes: ... since God created the animals in front of Adam, satan couldn't come in and claim to have been the creator. That is why satan went after Eve first. When did satan claim to be the creator? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024