Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not reading God's Word right is just wrong. No talking snakes!
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 151 of 157 (513146)
06-25-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by greentwiga
06-25-2009 10:27 AM


The word generations in Gen 2:4 still argues that there were humans before Adam.
This doesn't imply anything of the sort, it only means that Adam had decendants. There are other parts of the Bible that imply (or flat-out state) that there are other people: Where does Cain's wife come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by greentwiga, posted 06-25-2009 10:27 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by greentwiga, posted 06-25-2009 1:49 PM Perdition has not replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 152 of 157 (513147)
06-25-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Perdition
06-25-2009 12:57 PM


I absolutely agree about Cain's wife.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Perdition, posted 06-25-2009 12:57 PM Perdition has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 153 of 157 (513158)
06-25-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by greentwiga
06-25-2009 10:27 AM


quote:
The word generations in Gen 2:4 still argues that there were humans before Adam.
It certainly does not. Yet another poitn where your analysis fails.
quote:
As for plants, if there were no plants before Adam, not only does that contradict science, but it contradicts Gen 1.
That is irrelevant to our discussion since I am not asserting that there were no plants before Adam.
quote:
To say that the Bible says that Adam and other humans couldn't have bred plants of the field out of wild plants is to argue that the Bible says people today can't breed animals and plants to generate new breeds.
Now you are getting irrational I am not asserting that Adam would have been incapable of breeding plants. I am asserting that the Bible indicates that Adam did not produce the plants referred to in 2:5 by breeding.
Of course all that this is really about is your need to pretend that you are sticking closely to the text. And the bizarre thing is that there is a reading which is at least not scientifically implausible, and does less violence to the verse than your reading. If it is not close, at least it does not reduce it to nonsense. That is, that it refers to the drought reducing the productivity of the wild stands, a reduction that could be countered by cultivation.
As I keep telling you, you are actually treating Genesis 2 as a mythologised account of the events that you presume occurred. If you were to do so consistently you would not be creating such problems for yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by greentwiga, posted 06-25-2009 10:27 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by greentwiga, posted 06-27-2009 12:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 154 of 157 (513256)
06-27-2009 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by PaulK
06-25-2009 3:36 PM


If the drought reducing the productivity of the wild stands, then the scripture should have read that there were no plants of the field because God didn't send pain. period. Yes the drought reduced the productivity, for scientists discuss the rapid disappearance of almost all the villages during the Younger Dryas. There were still some wild plants. The verse adds that there were no men to work the ground. Before the younger Dryas, we have evidence of harvesting and processing tools like sickles and grinders, but no evidence of tools to work the ground. After the younger Dryas, we have evidence that there were tools to work the ground. The point is that at the start of Gen 2 there was no tilling and cultivating and by the time of the curse, and later, Cain and Abel, there was tilling and cultivating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 06-25-2009 3:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2009 2:05 AM greentwiga has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 155 of 157 (513259)
06-27-2009 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by greentwiga
06-27-2009 12:47 AM


quote:
If the drought reducing the productivity of the wild stands, then the scripture should have read that there were no plants of the field because God didn't send pain. period
Not if it ALSO meant that cultivation could help counter the effects of water shortage. Which is what I said.
quote:
Before the younger Dryas, we have evidence of harvesting and processing tools like sickles and grinders, but no evidence of tools to work the ground. After the younger Dryas, we have evidence that there were tools to work the ground.
How LONG after ? And do you have a source (a checkable reference, please, at worse specifying the chapter if the source is a book).
quote:
The point is that at the start of Gen 2 there was no tilling and cultivating and by the time of the curse, and later, Cain and Abel, there was tilling and cultivating.
Which fits perfectly well with the idea that the story is a mythologised account of the beginnings of agriculture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by greentwiga, posted 06-27-2009 12:47 AM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by greentwiga, posted 06-27-2009 3:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3427 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 156 of 157 (513263)
06-27-2009 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by PaulK
06-27-2009 2:05 AM


quote:
Which fits perfectly well with the idea that the story is a mythologised account of the beginnings of agriculture.
Which fits perfectly well with the idea that the story is an account of the beginnings of agriculture. It doesn't have to be mythologized.
I'll be gone a couple of days but look up the references after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2009 2:05 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by PaulK, posted 06-27-2009 3:29 AM greentwiga has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 157 of 157 (513264)
06-27-2009 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by greentwiga
06-27-2009 3:00 AM


quote:
Which fits perfectly well with the idea that the story is an account of the beginnings of agriculture. It doesn't have to be mythologized.
That pretty much proves my point, then. I pointed out that the "mythologised" reading of Genesis 2:5 was better than yours even on fidelity to the scripture. And you respond by finding verses where the two are equally good ?
Look, fidelity to the scripture is NOT a major criterion when the scripture is taken as mythology. If you can't find verses where your reading does better on that criterion then you are clearly conceding my point. And of course even if you did find such verses it would still fail to justify your reading of Genesis 2:5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by greentwiga, posted 06-27-2009 3:00 AM greentwiga 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