|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
I think Kelly was suggesting that Hebrew terminology for beastes of the field is different for other animals.....BTW, I find it ironic that a man could critisize others for not understanding biology and then make the assertion that all animals live in fields.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
While on that topic, exactly where is Behe lacking in his understanding of biology, Crash?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
Of course "beastes of the field" refers to all animals......after all, all animals live in fields......ESPECIALLY fish.......desert dwelling creatures........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
"I don't believe you"? What kind of weak counter-assertion is that? It seems clear that Crash's primary debating technique is sticking his fingers in his ears and humming to himself to drown out the sounds of arguments which contradict his own.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
This is in reference to message 17, the last relevant message. The individual who referred me to this group listed your name Crash among a few others, as excellent debaters. After reading message 17 and seeing how quickly your argument degenerated into an expression of your personal feelings like 'I don't believe you,' rather than real evidence, I must maintain that the individual clearly overestimated you. Crash is one of those guys you love while you're in agreement and hate when you're not.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
Well, I'm not, and I don't. I don't believe that "beasts of the field" is an antonym of "cattle". You've given me no reason to believe it, so why should I? She gave you a direct quotation from a scholar of ancient Hebrew which stated her point as fact.......what more can she do to back up her point? Now it's your turn to either make a non-laughable counter assertion or conceed the point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
There's more, too. I think the most devastating difference between Gen 1 and 2 is the drastically different character of God presented. In the first, he speaks and his will is made manifest - he's the vast creator God of deism; creating, seeing the goodness, and resting. In the second, he creates with his hands - he's a personal God, taking an interest in his creation, guiding and nurturing it. Which is perfectly consistant with the style of story telling used by the Hebrews in which you give a broad overview of the story and then go over it again in greater detail........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
The assertion that Genisis 1 and 2 were originally intended to be read as seperate stories, the first ending at verse 3 of chapter 2 and the second begining at verse 4, is a huge assumption based entirely on ONE apparent contradiction throughout the entirety of both.
The second creation story supposedly begins with verse 4, which states "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." What proponents of this groundless theory never point out is that this supposed second creation story DOESN'T INCLUDE the creation of the Earth.......or the heavens........Meaning that the above verse, far from being the intended begining of a second chronology, was placed there to CONNECT the broad overview portion of the story with the more detailed account. And the heavens and earth are not the only things whose creation isn't outlined in the "second" chronology.......the creation of sea life, plant life and cattle isn't detailed either. I'll tell ya, if this supposed second story was actually intended to be read as a seperate creation story, I think it would have accounted for the existance of small details like the earth, the heavens, sea life, plant life and cattle. But there is one apparent contradiction, I conceed, between the two stories, as PaulK mentioned earlier.......that being the creation of birds preceeding the creation of man. Still, that's a minor point, easily explained away as poetic liscense and/or errors in transcription and translation. It's a huge leap to take that one tiny chronological incongruity and assert that it's proof of dual chronology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
Gen 1 and 2 have the same degree of detail. Yep......apart from the fact that Genisis 2 doesn't mention the creation of sea life......or plant life......or cattle, apparently.......or the heavens or the earth....... Other than that, same amount of detail.
They just have different details. That's what it means to be contradictory. There's only one bit of contradiction completely confined to one verse, which is easily explained away as poetic liscence or error in trascription or translation........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
There's no way to reverse the implied chronology of this sentence with anything as simple as a "transcript error." Sure I can, when considering that it's in poetic form and that it's the only part that contradicts...... And you still can't get past the little fact that this supposed second chronology of the creation of heaven and earth is missing little details one would expect to find in a chronology, such as the creation of sea life, plant life, cattle and the heavens and earth themselves!
The very next verse has Adam naming "all cattle" with no mention of cattle having been brought before him. How did the cattle get there? Clearly, that's implied in "beasts of the field." Actually, in the very verse you're referring to, there's a distinction made between beasts of the earth and cattle......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
"plant life" - verses 8,9 That's not the creation of plant life.......it's the creation of Eden.
"cattle" - ("every kind of animal and bird" verse 19, Living Bible) And that's why serious Biblical students don't use paraphrase translations, like the Living Bible.......
"heavens and earth themselves" - verse 4 Saying verse 4 is an account of the creation of heaven and earth is like saying "let me tell ya 'bout a story 'bout a man named Jeb" is the entirety of the first episode of the Beverly Hillbillies........
This scenario depicts earth as a desert, so we shouldn't be surprised that there's no mention of sea life. So, what, God decided later on "hey, I should add a few seas, lakes rivers, etc.......oh, and I should fill those with life"........
But it is fruitless to compare it with the other scenario, for there are far too many conflicting 'facts.' So far, we've come up with ONE.......
Your concern about the difference between 'cattle' and 'beasts of the field' puzzles me. When I write I don't limit my expression. You also don't speak ancient Hebrew......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
Crash, you're missing the forrest for the trees.......does the time-line of the creation of animals and birds apparently conflict with the Genisis 1 creation of animals and birds? Yes. Can you call a creation story that doesn't include the creation of heaven, earth, sea life, plant life and cattle a seperate chronolgy? No, you can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
Only a fundamentalist minority even pretend that there's one author of the Pentateuch. Untrue, and you have no really solid evidence to back up multiple authorship. "Atheists are just like theists; they find it highly disturbing when you try to weaken their faith." Myself, a couple minutes ago I think it's cute that Sidelined changed his quote to be in direct opposition of mine. Internal thought "I believe in one God,the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets... I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen." The Nicene Creed Winner of the LSS's 2004 Longest Signature Award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
I don't recall there being anything in the registration agreemen about signature length..........besides, I think this is less about the length of my signature and more about what my signature says......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RustyShackelford  Inactive Member |
Oh, no, I'm gonna keep posting my signature like it is, as long as there's nothing against it in the rules.......because if there's nothing against it in the rules, there's not a damn thing you can do to stop me, correct? Can't put me in boot camp for NOT breaking the rules, right?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024