Is the Bible acceptable?

Agreed.- We could quibble over details but thats a good enough summary. Given a belief in God none of this should cause a person to stumble.- I'm not sure I understand. Mortality involves dying. Death coming in through disobedience is not the same as life coming in through reproduction. Man bringing about one through sin and the other through sex is not a contradiction.- From apologeticspress

quote:

---

Genesis 1 and 2 are said to contradict each other in the relative creation-order of plants and man. In chapter 1, it is argued, plants were created on the third day of the initial week (11-12), and man was made on the sixth day (26ff.), whereas in chapter 2, plants and herbs seem not to appear until after the formation of man (5ff.). The real problem exists only in the mind of the critic. There are possible means by which to resolve the alleged difficulty.

---

Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? - Apologetics Press-A couple of possibilities are examined in the article pertaining to this "contradiction". Here's one.

quote:

---

In Genesis 1:11-12 vegetation in general is under consideration, but in Genesis 2:5ff. the writer is discussing the specific sort of vegetation that requires human cultivation. It has been observed “that the words rendered plant, field, and grew, never occur in the first chapter; they are terms expressive of the produce of labour and cultivation; so that the historian evidently means that no cultivated land and no vegetables fit for the use of man were yet in existence on the earth” (Browne, 1981, 1:39, emp. in orig.).

---

- Hopefully you will begin to see that it is the application of reason that permits a person to render the creation accounts harmonious. And that a talking snake should be no more difficult for God to bring about than a talking human.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : change morality to mortality

Before looking at the single section of my post you did respond to, can I ask about the rest to which you didn't?Part of the "anything I have shared" queried how you could find a contradiction between "death coming in via sin" & "life being brought about by the instruction to reproduce". That was an objection you raised. Is it still an objection you raise?I also don't see what un-reason has to do with talking snakes. Are you arguing from incredulity or have you something reasoned to say about this being unreasonable.

Your objection wasn't dealing with empirical evidence, it was attempting to find contradiction in the account in Genesis. Between creation account 1 & 2. The one dealt with Gods instruction to multiply. The other to do with disobedience leading to death. Two completely separate issues - unless you can find a connection that isMy question: where is the contradiction you suggest exists in this area? How do you figure the instruction to be fruitful and multiply was issued after the disobedience?

If you wanted to describe an actual serpent of the field speaking to humans, which words would you use in biblical Hebrew?

Fair enough. We can't decide real or allegorical "talking snake" based on the Hebrew for talking snake. I don't follow. The words use for talking snake don't indicate real/allegorical (if I am understanding you correctly). The savvy reader must use other means to infer allegorical rather than actual talking snake thus. These means are not supplied by this... -finally.. I mean no disrespect but you seem to be invoking an argument from incredulity. If CGI can have a snake talk on screen, who is to say God cannot permit a snake to talk in real life. Should one care that the snake has no vocal chords suitable for the practice? I say not at all. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Its hardly special pleading to suppose the spiritual realm to operate through the physical realm when one is talking with one who is apparently believing of the spiritual realm.

My argument of Godddidit is addressed to one who seems to hold that Goddidlotsbutnotthis. The issue is whatGoddidanddidnotYou have no issue with us.

Excuse my apparent dimness. But why do you suppose this? We have already established that if there truly was a talking snake then the language would be the same as in the case of an allegorical talking snake. We might well have to give up in that case. There is nothing in what you say above that indicates the talking serpent more allegorical than literal. Perhaps you suppose me reading something into what you write - but I don't. Line by line... with a view to determining allegorical rather that literal talking snake.- the narrator lived (you suggest) in a field with the serpent. Does this render the serpent anymore allegorical? No!- the ancient author knew the bush. Does this render the serpent anymore allegorical? No!- In reality there is no such thing (you assert) as a talking snake. Does this render the serpent any more allegorical? No!You haven't even begun to make it clear to my mind AM. There is no argumentation here - not as far I can tell at least I see nothing fanciful nor absurd in a talking snake- especially when accepting the existance of a creator God who brought about snakes and speech in the first place. The serpent acts only as a delivery device - its not like I even give the actual device a second thought. Its what's delivered by it that interests me more.A talking snake? No offence intended but.. so?? At this time you haven't really said anything of substance to deflect me from a living, slitering talking snake. All I have thus far is that the same Hebrew words would be used to describe a literal and allegorical talking snake.You make a shift now. And from less than solid ground to another notion with which I have trouble. The focus of the Eden narrative is most clearly the temptation of man and disobedience of man and the casting out from the garden of man I suspect not. I would disagree that belief had nothing to do with it. I would say that in order to chose for the serpents option, the 'human archetype' had to disbelieve the consequences the God promised for disobedience.