|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
so that means that we shoudl be able to go up into the heavens/space and see God dwelliing up there. I dont think i've heard of any astronauts returning to earth with news of seeing God up there....unless i've been living under a rock lol. You sure about that?
quote: source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I will admit my view which I am the only one I know of who holds such a view of Genesis chapter 1 and 2 may be wrong. But it has not been refuted. Your view requires the listing of people at the end of Gen. 4:
quote: and the listing of people which immediately follows in Gen. 5:
quote: to be completely different people even thought they have the exact same names in the same order, presented back-to-back from one chapter to the next. This ridiculousness refutes your view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: Your view requires the listing of people at the end of Gen. 4: Why? The only reason I would have to include them is because Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury, put the modern chapter divisions into place in around A.D. 1227. Was he inspired to divide the text as Moses was to record it. I am not sure he was not inspired by his own teachings and biases. Well now you're just being inconsistent. You pick and choose when you want to use the Chapter divisions and when you don't, and when you want to take one specific word as divinely inspired or not. You have your a priori belief and you'll twist the Bible to fit it however you need to. There's no reason to take your particular apologetic over any other one. That you can twist the Bible up so bad as to avoid any refutation isn't saying anything more than you're skills as a mental gymnast. ABE:
Was he inspired to divide the text as Moses was to record it. From your own source:
quote: Moses didn't write either of them... Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I can get along fine without verses and chapters as far as understanding what is written. Where by "understanding" you mean: "making up stuff that still fits with the words", right?
Anyone can believe anything they want to believe but that does not make it so. You say that a lot... yet its quite a worthless thing to say. On one hand, you just can't be correct for then, if you wanted, you could believe that you are a gay black jewish klansman... so can you do that? No, you must mean that you are free to believe what you want. But that's never been contended here... So what are you really saying? I see it as: "Neener-neener, I don't care what you say, I'm gonna stick to my beliefs regardless because I can if I want to." How childish!
On that note if you have and opinion why don't you take my affirmations and rebut them. Maybe we could both learn something. I already have:
quote: For your made-up apology to be correct, the Bible has to be this jigsaw puzzle that you have to chop up and reshape the pieces so you can fit them back together. Rather than the order we've all come to understand, ICANT's version has a chronology like this: Gen 1:1 then Gen 2:4 through Gen 4:26 then Gen 1:2 through Gen 2:3 then Gen 5. It turns god into a bumbling idiot who can't even get his own book right. Certainly he was capable of inspiring the people who decided on where the chapter divisions should be, no? Why accept Moses's inspiration but not another's? Because it doesn't fit with your apology? You pick and choose which things about the Bible you believe, because you have to deny some things to keep your story straight. For you, whether or not someone was inspired by god depends on whether or not they go with or against your own personal made up story. Even within one source, you'll accept one of their things and reject the other. You've come up with something you think keeps the Bible from being wrong, but you have to twist it so much that its not even the same Bible anymore. Plus, you have to go against a lot of factual knowledge we do have to maintain it. That's having an a priori story that you have to shoehorn the Bible into. That's not how you're supposed to do it. You're supposed to start with the Bible and then get the story from it. And if we're honest, it turns out that some of the things the Bible says are incorrect. But that's only a big deal to people who's house-of-cards faith rests on that literal inerrancy. Like I said, its ridiculous... More worthy of ridicule than any actual consideration. That's why it stands as refuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Now to answer your question.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, This verse says the heaven and the earth was created in a day.The earth existed inthe evening when darkness came in Genesis 1:2. That means the earth and heavens was created in a light portion. Yet in Message 96 you wrote:
quote: Just thought I'd point out another example of your inconsistency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
So if you could get off your hight horse and climb down off your soap box maybe you could examine what I affirmed the KJV says and point out my inconsistencies in my presentation. Message 94 The important part:
quote: Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: Like I said, its ridiculous... More worthy of ridicule than any actual consideration. Then it should be no problem for you to take my affirmations apart verse by verse and set me straight once and for all. Non-squitor. That I can see that your apology as a whole is nonsensical does not necessitate that your affirmations of each verse can easily be rebutted. But of course you'd prefer it this way, for then when the ambiguity of a specific verse arrises, you can fall on your standard 'You're can believe what you want'. Going verse by verse wouldn't allow either one of us to succeed, and then you feel like you can get away with claiming again that your version has never been refuted. Why can you not deal with the problem of your apology as a whole? Because you're wrong.
Do you care to give it a go? Yes/No No, not really. But I'll point a couple things out. One of your problems is using the phrase "in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" in Gen 2:4, as absolutely having to be referring to Gen 1:1. Just because they use similiar verbiage doesn't mean they have to be literaly the exact same thing. Also, with Gen 1:1, you think that it must be declarative, and that it must mean that the earth was totally complete at that time. But it looks more like an opening phrase like "Once upon a time". You don't allow for any linguistic style or flavor at all, i.e. what words are used must be exactly what they specifically say and nothing else. You put Noah's Flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 as the cause of it being covered in water, right? But we see that the earth is formless and void, that wasn't the case after the flood. Noah and the animals were there so it couldn't have been "void". Plus it had to have some kind of form for them to land on... Rather than put more time in this, I'll see how you reply first and we can go from there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." So was the heaven and the earth created in Genesis 1:1?
No, they were created in the beginning. Gen 1:1 was written after the beginning. Also, its a copy of a copy of a copy, according to you, so why even cling to that particular wording as The TruthTM... But further, what makes you think you even know what is being talked about as heaven and earth? You assume that earth means the planet Earth but it could be something else, like the land. So even your affirmation on it saying what it says doesn't support your interpretation of what it means. You're just making stuff up that you can shoehorn into what you think the words as presented mean. And you want us to try to argue against what the words are instead of what you are assuming they should be interpreted to mean. And then you're gonna keep claiming that your interpretation has not been refuted because your affirmation on what the words are have not been refuted. If you can see the problem with this then I can't help you. ABE: Straggler had the best point in this thread: One could use the same words that you have affirmed to come to the conclusion that, not only are there two creation stories, but that there are two earths. You're position is an arbitrary post-hoc rationalization based on your own assumptions that you are unwilling to consider might be incorrect. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why do we have to understand what the ancient audience understood the writer to mean, to be able to understand what is written in the KJV Bible? Because otherwise you might think that when the ground was referred to as "earth" that it was talking about the entire planet as a whole. If you knew that they didn't have the concept of a planet then you'd realize that "earth" was instead referring to the ground and the story would make more sense and be truer to itself.
All we have to know what story is being told is what is written in the KJV Bible. Wrong. This could easily lead you to some totally bullshit story, as we've seen.
That is the reason I would like for someone, anyone to take the verse by verse affirmations I made and refute them if possible. No one in 60 years has tried. You've been refuted, ICANT. And I knew you'd act like this:
quote: quote: We can see right through you, ICANT, and you're a dishonest person.
God is the same forever therefore the story written for the Hebrews was also written for us today. He's not even the same between Gen1 and Gen2!! Is there anything you're not wrong about!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:Exactly!!!! But... but... he is just affirming what is written... ICANT is not an honest man.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. This verse says in the beginning.God created the Heaven and the Earth. My interpertation: In the beginning which no one can give a date for.God created the Heaven and the Earth. Does anyone disagree with my interpertation?
I do. Its just an opening verse akin to "Once upon a time..." It is not declaring that there was one first day there with a complete Earth existing.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, This verse says: These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. My interpertation: These are the history of the Heaven and the Earth.These include all the things following Genesis 2:4-4:24. In the day. God created the Heaven and the Earth in a light period or a light period including a dark period. There could not have been a second light period or second dark period. Because the text says in the day. We do find a dark period in Genesis 1:2. You're too literal. You don't allow for any flavor. It doesn't have to be referring to some specific day as it could just be another idiomatic phrase like "In the beginning". You're focusing to much on individual and specific words and what they must be exactly pointing to rather than trying to understand what the author was intending to convey.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
ICANT is trying to reconcile the seeming errors in the Bible with the scientific understanding of reality. We know the Earth is more than 10,000 years old but a literal interpretation of the Bible suggests otherwise. Enter Gap Creationism:
quote: It doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. Its about maintaining the Bible's authority as literal and inerrant. If you have to rely on that about the Bible to keep your faith in Jesus, then you've got problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes: I do. Its just an opening verse akin to "Once upon a time..." But it does not say "once upon a time". It does say "In the beginning'. No shit, Sherlock. I said it was akin to, meaning that it was like it, not that it was it. If it did say "Once upon a time", then you would be arguing that it happened literally a single instance on top of a thing that was time, or something equally as stupid as that. That's the problem with your approach.
A specific starting point. O RLY? When, specifically, was that starting point?
"God" the subject. "Created" verb of completed action. "The Heaven and the Earth" Object produced in the action of God's creating.
Yes, ICANT... similiarly: "Once" a single incident. "Upon" on top of. "A time" a thing called time. Therefore "Once upon a time" is talking about a single incident on top of a thing called time. This is what your argument is like.
CS writes: It is not declaring that there was one first day there with a complete Earth existing. I would agree that there is not a 12 hour period of light that the completed Universe and Earth began to exist in. But there was a period of light that existed from the beginning until the evening we find at Genesis 1:2. This light period of existence is of an undetermined existence. It could have been 20 billion years or longer there is no way of knowing.
quote: Are you confused?
But however long it was it ended in the evening we find at Genesis 1:2 and when the dark period that ended with the following light period was declared the first day. Nope. Gen 1:2 starts with the conjuction "and". That conjuncts the first phrase with the second one making it one statement. In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth, and the Earth was formless and void. Then it goes on about how he formed the Earth. Its really pretty simple.
I will take "you're too literal" as a compliment. I do believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. Not just the idiomatic phrases of mankind.
But only if you twist it up so much that it nonsensical so that it doesn't go against what we do know about reality... then you can believe it.
CS writes: You're focusing to much on individual and specific words and what they must be exactly pointing to rather than trying to understand what the author was intending to convey. Words have meanings and that is the way we convey our messages. The author of Genesis used words to convey what he was trying to say to us. Those words have specific meanings. What do you think "Once upon a time" means, ICANT? Specifically. Read it like you're reading the Bible and tell me...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE GAP THEORY. Maybe not The Gap Theory, but you do believe in a gap theory. You treat Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 as seperate events (despite them being conjucted), between which a whole bunch of stuff happened. That is a gap theory.
But the only things we can know for sure is the things that Moses recorded for us as he had been told by God. We can't even be sure that Moses wrote it. In fact, he most likely did not.
If you can not believe Genesis 1:1 you can not believe Jesus came and died for the sins of the world. Bullshit! We know for a fact that the Earth was formed much later than the heavens were and that they were not formed at the same time. Whether or not god did it is a whole 'nother thing.
If Genesis 1:1 is a lie then John 1:1-3 is a lie. A lie? No, Gen 1:1 is simply unintentionally wrong in its specifics. Alothough, as I said, its just a phrase. It is not a statement of a fact of history. Regardless though, your consequent is still a non-sequitor.
Nothing else in the book would mean anything. Yeah, you're one of those all or nothing literalists. Your faith is a house of cards... on a waterbed! No wonder you have to go through so much deception to maintain your positions. You simply cannot face the Bible having an error or else your whole philosophy comes crashing down all the way to not having faith in Jesus any more. That is pathetic. You're a theological child and you show it with your behavior here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
From Message 365:
Genesis 1:1 is not a statement of a fact of history ? It is unintentionally wrong in its specifics ? I think not. Why? Its just an old folklore.
I take it as a stated fact for sure. But its so blatantly incorrect!?
What evidence do you have that God did not create the heavens and the earth in the beginning ? The earth and the heavens did not come about at the same time, the earth formed later than the heavens.
This is a statement of fact to be believed by faith:
"By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not come into being out of things which appear." (Heb 11:3) I don't have a problem with God being the one who did it. From Message 367:
Hebrew translators don't always agree on that matter, if I recall rightly. Don't forget that ICANT said to use the KJV... although, only when it helps him and never when it hurts him
quote: But aside from the linquistics, haven't you seen how much of scientific opinion is inching closer to some kind of past catastrophism ? Very often these days we hear of theories as to why the mass extinctions to previous life forms. I have heard of killer GAS, killer COMETS, killer ASTEROIDS. I think modern scientific thought is moving closer to a creation / destruction view of earth history. At least it is very frequent today that we hear of one or more earth catastrophies causing massive extinctions.
Yeah, but your looking at it from now-a-days. The earth was "formless and void", which is referring to Chaos, which the cultures of the time thought of as the default state of existence. The earth is not the planet as a whole, but what the people viewed as their land. The deep referred to the vast uninhabitable body of salt water that was non-earth. The water is the regular, non-salty, water that is the purifier, the allower of life. So we have the land in chaos, and the deep already being there, as well as fresh water, and god jiggering with them to make a habitable place for us. Its fairly straight-forward and fits with the culture of the time. On the other hand, we have the planet, a concept the culture of the time didn't have, going through some kind of catastrophe first. But that doesn't really fit with views of the culture that this story sprang from. Plus, its not as striaght-forward and the story is some kind of secret code, that the intended audience would not have received, that you have to unlock to get the real understanding.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024