Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 607 (561305)
05-19-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by New Cat's Eye
05-19-2010 4:28 PM


Re: inconsistency
Hi CS,
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.
Do you care to give it a go? Yes/No
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-19-2010 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2010 10:16 AM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 107 of 607 (561307)
05-19-2010 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Straggler
05-19-2010 7:20 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
ICANT it seems obvious to numerous theistic and atheistic observers that the bible is simply telling the same story twice in ways which are inconsistent. On what basis do you reject this seemingly obvious conclusion?
First off if you can read and understand english and the construction of the Hebrew language it is not so obvious.
If you are one of those atheistic observers, why don't you take my affirmations verse by verse and and show me where I go wrong.
I am prepared to defend my position. But there is no reason to keep stating my position over and over.
If you know one of those theistic observers why not convince one of them to rebut my affirmations.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Straggler, posted 05-19-2010 7:20 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2010 4:47 AM ICANT has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 108 of 607 (561318)
05-19-2010 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by ICANT
05-19-2010 1:59 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
I have affirmed Genesis 1:5 says "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
This verse says: God called the light portion day.
This verse says: God called the dark portion night.
This verse says: God called the combination of the light period and dark period as a day.
That kinda puts a crimp in your definition of a day.
So if the first day comes in vs 5, what came before it? No days are mentioned, but the existing earth was mentioned.
In vs 2 it says 'the earth was formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the waters'....this is an existing earth but no life was present for it says the earth was void.
so this obviously came before there was any light because no light is mentioned...only darkness.
ICANT writes:
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.
So Genesis 1:1 took place in the light period mentioned in Genesis 2:4.
All the things in Genesis 2:5-25 was accomplished in that light period according to the words in Genesis 2:4, as they are a story of a creation in chapter 2.
the problem i can see here is that Gen chpt 2 is speaking about the creation of mankind....not the earth. So the context has completely changed. It has nothing to do with the 'earth' but has everything to do with 'mankind'
So while chpt 1 was a complete overview of all of Gods creations including man, Chpt 2 now looks only at the creation of man. It even opens with the words
Gen2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their COMPLETION.
So you assertion is that something new was created in chpt 2 but the text in no way indicates this...it specifically says that everything was complete then goes into the history again but this time only mentions mankind.
You also still havnt commented on why Jesus himself spoke of the Gen 1 and 2 as if it was one account. If anyone knew the truth it would be him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by ICANT, posted 05-19-2010 1:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2010 7:47 PM Peg has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 109 of 607 (561368)
05-20-2010 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
05-19-2010 8:56 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
If you are one of those atheistic observers, why don't you take my affirmations verse by verse and and show me where I go wrong.
Why would I do that? Nobody is disputing that the two chapters use different words. Nor am I claiming that they will perfectly match up in their descriptions. Same myth told in two different ways.
If you know one of those theistic observers why not convince one of them to rebut my affirmations.
I think they are.
I am prepared to defend my position.
If two eye witness testimonies describe essentially the same events in different words and with some contradictory details do we conclude that they actually witnessed two completely different events? Occam is spinning like a electric whisk on steroids.
First off if you can read and understand english and the construction of the Hebrew language it is not so obvious.
Is it possible that the bible is just saying the same stuff twice in ways that are a bit inconsistent? Can you see why you seem to be alone on this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 05-19-2010 8:56 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2010 7:54 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 607 (561392)
05-20-2010 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by ICANT
05-19-2010 8:47 PM


Re: inconsistency
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 05-19-2010 8:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2010 8:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 111 of 607 (561601)
05-21-2010 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Peg
05-19-2010 10:52 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
So if the first day comes in vs 5, what came before it? No days are mentioned, but the existing earth was mentioned.
But it was evening in vs 5 as that evening and the next morning was the first complete light and dark period.
So where was the light period?
Peg writes:
In vs 2 it says 'the earth was formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the waters'....this is an existing earth but no life was present for it says the earth was void.
So the earth existed and was covered with water.
Would you say the earth was uninhabitable?
Peg writes:
the problem i can see here is that Gen chpt 2 is speaking about the creation of mankind....not the earth. So the context has completely changed. It has nothing to do with the 'earth' but has everything to do with 'mankind'
In Genesis 2:4-25 these things took place.
Mankind was formed from the dust of the ground and God breathed the breath of life into that form and it became a living being. verse 7
God planted a garden. verse 8
Out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; verse 9
Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; verse 19
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman. verse 22
I agree that Genesis 2:4 through 2:25 has nothing to do with the creation of the earth. But it is the history of the heaven and the earth in the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
Now it did have something to do with the earth.
Man was formed from the dust of the earth.
The earth produced whatever God planted and it also produces all fruit bearing trees.
All the creatures and fowl were produced from the earth. verse 19
So the earth was involved.
Peg writes:
so this obviously came before there was any light because no light is mentioned...only darkness.
The earth was not created in Genesis 1:2=31.
The earth was in existence at Genesis 1:2 which you agreed to.
Genesis writes:
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,
Does this verse say these are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created?
Does this verse say, when they were created in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens?
Did God call the light day in Genesis 1:5?
Did God call the dark portion night in Genesis 1:5?
Did God call that evening and the morning (start of next light period) the first day?
Was the ending of that light period that ended the first day along with the following dark period called the second day? Genesis 1:8
It seems to me there was a light period in which God created the heaven and the earth which was call day. But evening had come in Genesis 1:2.
Peg writes:
Gen2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth and all their army came to their COMPLETION.
You are not quoting the KJV and what it says is what I am affirming.
KJV writes:
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
I believe that Gods creating began in Genesis 1:1 in the beginning., and ended in Genesis 1:27 as declared in Genesis 2:1.
God has not bara created anything since that point in time as He is still resting from creating. IOW He is not creating at the present time. He will in the future.
Peg writes:
You also still havnt commented on why Jesus himself spoke of the Gen 1 and 2 as if it was one account. If anyone knew the truth it would be him.
You don't find this in Genesis chapter 1.
KJV writes:
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
KJV writes:
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
A male person was created.
KJV writes:
Genesis 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
A female person was created from the rib of the man.
The man said this is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. For that reason they shall be one flesh.
I don't find that anywhere in the creation story in Genesis chapter 1:2=27.
I find it concerning the man and woman created in the day the heavens and the earth was created as they are part of that history.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Peg, posted 05-19-2010 10:52 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Peg, posted 05-23-2010 5:40 AM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 112 of 607 (561602)
05-21-2010 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Straggler
05-20-2010 4:47 AM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
Why would I do that?
Because that would be honest debate.
Straggler writes:
Is it possible that the bible is just saying the same stuff twice in ways that are a bit inconsistent? Can you see why you seem to be alone on this?
But I am not alone in believing there are two separate creation stories in Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2. Most modern scholars agree with me. Shucks crashfrog even agrees that there are 2 creations stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2010 4:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2010 8:02 PM ICANT has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 113 of 607 (561604)
05-21-2010 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by ICANT
05-21-2010 7:54 PM


What Would You Consider A Valid Refutation?
ICANT writes:
If you are one of those atheistic observers, why don't you take my affirmations verse by verse and and show me where I go wrong.
Straggler writes:
Why would I do that? Nobody is disputing that the two chapters use different words. Nor am I claiming that they will perfectly match up in their descriptions. Same myth told in two different ways.
ICANT writes:
Because that would be honest debate.
What?
ICANT can you clarify what it is you want here? What will it take for you to consider your position on this refuted?
Are you expecting someone to go through the two chapters verse by verse and show that in fact they are entirely consistent with each other? That no meaning other than the same identical meaning is conceivably possible?
What would refute your position on this in your eyes?
ICANT writes:
Shucks crashfrog even agrees that there are 2 creations stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2.
Who?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2010 7:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2010 9:38 PM Straggler has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 114 of 607 (561611)
05-21-2010 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by New Cat's Eye
05-20-2010 10:16 AM


Re: inconsistency
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
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?
If it was not created then, in what light period was it created?
Straggler writes:
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.
What is a declarative statement?
According to th University of Otawa:
The declarative sentence is the most important type. You can, and often will write entire essays or reports using only declarative sentences, and you should always use them far more often than any other type. A declarative sentence simply states a fact or argument, without requiring either an answer or action from the reader
Source
Genesis 1:1 makes a complete statement requiring nothing from the reader.
It has a subject God.
It has a verb created which denotes completed action.
The result of that action was that the heaven and the earth existed.
Therefore Genesis 1:1 Declared God created which was a completed action, heaven and earth.
Catholic Scientist writes:
You put Noah's Flood between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2 as the cause of it being covered in water, right?
Wrong I have Noah's Flood at the conventional time.
Peter refers to Genesis 1:2 in:
Peter writes:
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
Peter said the old world perished there was no survivors.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Rather than put more time in this, I'll see how you reply first and we can go from there.
If you decide to put more time into it, it probably would not hurt to click on ICANT Posts Only and read what I have actually said.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-20-2010 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-26-2010 11:48 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 115 of 607 (561614)
05-21-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Straggler
05-21-2010 8:02 PM


Re: What Would You Consider A Valid Refutation?
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
ICANT can you clarify what it is you want here? What will it take for you to consider your position on this refuted?
In the OP I said:
ICANT writes:
In this thread I will affirm that there are 2 creations presented in Genesis chapter 1 and 2.
In this thread the KJV, LXX and Hebrew text will be used.
The Bible will be the final authority as that is what we will be discussing.
I am not affirming what someone else has said that the KJV Bible says. It makes no difference if the entire Bible is a myth as some claim. It makes no difference if one, two, three or even four different groups wrote the stories recorded in Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis.
I have simply went verse by verse and affirmed what the verses say.
For someone to refute them they would have to take the ones they disagree with and point out where I have misrepresented what is written in the text of the KJV Bible.
So if you could prove the KJV Bible does not say in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
If you could prove that Genesis 2:4 does not say " 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,"
If you could prove all the things listed in the history (generations) of the heaven and the earth did not take place in the same light period as the creation of the heaven and the earth.
If you could prove that the heavens and the earth did not exist at Genesis 1:2.
If you could prove that the mankind male and female created in Genesis 1:27 was ever put in a garden and forbidden to eat the fruit of any tree.
I think these would be enough to convince me I didn't have any idea what Genesis chapter 1 and 2 said.
Problem is you only have what is written in the first 2 chapters of Genesis to refute what is written in those 2 chapters.
I made my case throughout this thread and on several occasions asked if anyone cared to refute what I said was written in the first 2 chapters of Genesis.
So far no one has made an honest attempt to do so.
Would you care to give it a go?
Straggler writes:
Who?
crashfrog a died in the wool atheist poster of EvC.
In Message 50 the following statement:
crashfrog writes:
It's much more likely, based on the text, that it's simply a concatenation of two different regional oral histories; two variants of the same story that slowly "evolved" differences. (The irony is truly astounding.)
Again, this is the most reasonable conclusion based on reading the text. Of course, I don't read Hebrew, and the original manuscripts are not avaliable to any of us. But in regards to the Bible as it is presented in English, Gen 1 and Gen 2 are obviously both chronological accounts that don't agree. Trying to say that you "know" that one of them is not a chronological account, and then offering as evidence their disagreement doesn't fly. They could disagree for more likely reasons, including error.
He says two stories that don't agree.
I have a personal e-mail that confirms the same that they are two different stories but they are both myths so what difference does it make.
There are places here where we discussed the same issues that he presented the same thoughts but I am to lazy to look them up.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2010 8:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by hooah212002, posted 05-21-2010 9:46 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 05-23-2010 5:25 PM ICANT has replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 116 of 607 (561616)
05-21-2010 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by ICANT
05-21-2010 9:38 PM


Re: What Would You Consider A Valid Refutation?
Do you understand english ICANT? Is it not your native tongue?
crashfrog writes:
two variants of the same story.
You see that? The same story, told in 2 different ways. This is what you are misconstruing. This is what we are all trying to tell you.
ICANT writes:
He says two stories that don't agree.
NO.
This should be enough to tell anyone that you have reading comprehension issues.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2010 9:38 PM ICANT has not replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 117 of 607 (561771)
05-23-2010 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ICANT
05-21-2010 7:47 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
But it was evening in vs 5 as that evening and the next morning was the first complete light and dark period.
So where was the light period?
So rather then conclude that the 'evenings' mentioned could be figurative, you assume that because vs 5 says there was a first evening and morning, you conclude that there must have been a light period before light is mentioned?
I wonder why moses wasnt instructed to write about it.
ICANT writes:
So the earth existed and was covered with water.
Would you say the earth was uninhabitable?
at that point in time, yes.
ICANT writes:
I agree that Genesis 2:4 through 2:25 has nothing to do with the creation of the earth. But it is the history of the heaven and the earth in the day the Lord God created the heaven and the earth.
you dont think its possible that Moses could have used that terminology and then go on to describe mankinds appearance without infering the earths creation?
Nothing he says goes into the same details as he did in chpt 1 and you can see the context of what he's talking about quite easily. Its mankinds appearance that he discusses, nothing more.
ICANT writes:
The earth was not created in Genesis 1:2=31.
The earth was in existence at Genesis 1:2 which you agreed to.
thats right.
However you seem to be saying that there were two different creations and i dont understand why you would be saying that.
The earth was created a very long time ago along with the rest of the universe....the earth was one of the heavenly bodies created as part of the universe so of course i was existing in Vs 1. But there was no life on it until God created the right conditions.
those conditions were what he created from Vs2 onward.
ICANT writes:
You are not quoting the KJV and what it says is what I am affirming.
What you are speculating is that after the completion of Gods creations (earth, animals, vegetation, man) he went on to create a new man and woman (adam and eve) as if there were already a human population on earth before adam and eve were created.
thats pure speculation based on reading the text in a chronological order. But why are you reading the text in a chronological order? The context itself shows that Chpt 2 is not a chronological account.
Chpt 1 is a chronological account
Day 1: Let light come to be
Day 2: Let an expanse come to be
Day 3: Let the dry land appear
Day 3: Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth
Day 4: ‘Let luminaries come to be in the expanse
Day 5: ‘Water creatures and flying creatures’
Day 6: ‘Domestic animal and wild beast & Man in Gods image created'
But chpt 2 is simply the history of man. It just takes up at a point in the 3rd day after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding the details of what was needed for the arrival of humans
Chpt 2
Vs 5: Completed earth has no cultivated ground
Vs 6: Mist would water the earth
Vs 7: God creates a man for the purpose of cultivating the ground
Vs 8: God plants a garden in Eden for the man to live in
Vs 9: God causes to grow desirable food/vegetation
Vs 15: God settles the man in the garden
Vs 16: God gives man directions regarding the forbidden tree
Vs 18: God decides it not good for man to continue alone
Vs 19: God was forming Animals and Man was naming them
Vs 21: God creates a woman from mans rib
Vs 22: God brings woman to man and performs 1st marriage ceremony.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2010 7:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 05-23-2010 5:18 PM Peg has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 118 of 607 (561807)
05-23-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Peg
05-23-2010 5:40 AM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
Hi Peg,
Peg writes:
So rather then conclude that the 'evenings' mentioned could be figurative, you assume that because vs 5 says there was a first evening and morning, you conclude that there must have been a light period before light is mentioned?
I conclude there was a day because Genesis 2:4 says the heaven and the earth was created in a day, verses a night.
Peg writes:
I wonder why moses wasnt instructed to write about it.
Moses writes:
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,
He did mention it.
Peg writes:
at that point in time, yes.
So in Genesis 1:2 was uninhabitable.
But Isaiah says:
Isaiah writes:
45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else.
Isaiah records that God said He did not create it in vain. Same words used here as in Genesis 1:2.
So did God lie to Isaiah or has man been interperting Genesis 1:2 wrong?
Peg writes:
you dont think its possible that Moses could have used that terminology and then go on to describe mankinds appearance without infering the earths creation?
But my words you quoted specifically say the history had nothing to do with the creation of the heaven and the earth.
It did have with forming man from the dust of the ground.
It did have the planting of a garden.
It did have the God causing the ground to produce fruit trees, herbs and all plants.
It did have God forming all creatures including fowl from the ground.
It did have God making a woman out of the rib of man.
These people were put in the garden God had planted.
They were told they could eat from all trees but one.
Since all these things were bara created by God, why do you suggest this history was only about manking?
The only things bara created in Genesis 1:2-27 was water creatures and mankind, male and female. Everything else was called forth after its kind. All vegetation was called forth from the seed that was upon the ground.
Where did those seeds come from?
The last I knew you had to have plants with fruit to produce seed.
Peg writes:
Nothing he says goes into the same details as he did in chpt 1 and you can see the context of what he's talking about quite easily. Its mankinds appearance that he discusses, nothing more.
Would the detail be the same if he was talking about two different things?
There is a history of Genesis 1:1 recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:25 that has nothing to do with Genesis 1:2-2:3.
They are two different stories about two different events.
Peg writes:
However you seem to be saying that there were two different creations and i dont understand why you would be saying that.
I am saying there was a creation in Genesis 1:1 and the history of that creation was recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:25.
I am saying there was an event recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3 in which the only things bara created was water creatures and mankind in the image of God.
Peg writes:
The earth was created a very long time ago along with the rest of the universe....the earth was one of the heavenly bodies created as part of the universe so of course i was existing in Vs 1. But there was no life on it until God created the right conditions.
If there was no life on earth until 6,000+ years ago would you please explain to this old farm boy where all the trillions of tons of peat came from that produced all our natural gas, oil, and coal came from
Peg writes:
What you are speculating is that after the completion of Gods creations (earth, animals, vegetation, man) he went on to create a new man and woman (adam and eve) as if there were already a human population on earth before adam and eve were created.
thats pure speculation based on reading the text in a chronological order. But why are you reading the text in a chronological order? The context itself shows that Chpt 2 is not a chronological account.
Why do you say I am speculating. I examined each of the verses under question you refuse to go verse by verse and rebut them.
I know the thing in the 2 chapters are not in chronological order. That is the reason I have said Genesis 2:4-4:25 should follow Genesis 1:1 as 2:4 says this is the history of the heaven and the earth in the day the heaven and the earth was created.
I even listed the things between the 2 stories that can not be reconciled into one story which you nor anyone else has addressed.
In the story in Genesis 2:4-25 the man was formed from the dust of the ground and the woman made from one of his ribs. They were placed in a garden and forbidden to eat the fruit of one tree.
In the story in Genesis 1:2-31 the man and woman was made at the same time in the image of God. They were never placed in a garden nor were they forbidden to eat the fruit from any tree. They were told to multiply and replenish the earth.
That is just two major differences.
How can they be a record of the same thing?
Peg writes:
Chpt 1 is a chronological account
Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3 is a chronological account of what happened some 6000+ years ago.
Genesis 2:4-4:25 is a chronological account of what happened in the beginning in the day God created the heaven and the earth.
So you see they are chronological accounts they just are not in chronological order in the Bible.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Peg, posted 05-23-2010 5:40 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Peg, posted 05-23-2010 7:09 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 121 by Peg, posted 05-23-2010 7:27 PM ICANT has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 119 of 607 (561808)
05-23-2010 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by ICANT
05-21-2010 9:38 PM


Re: What Would You Consider A Valid Refutation?
Crashfrog writes:
two variants of the same story that slowly "evolved" differences.
ICANT writes:
He says two stories that don't agree.
And I agree that the two storeis don't agree perfectly. So what is your point?
The point you seem to be missing here is that by making the baseless assumption that the bible is inerrant in some sense you are missing the conclusion that everyone else is making.
Namely that it is the same story being told in two differently flawed ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 05-21-2010 9:38 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 05-23-2010 7:46 PM Straggler has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 120 of 607 (561827)
05-23-2010 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by ICANT
05-23-2010 5:18 PM


Re: Do you care to Debate the Affirmed?
ICANT writes:
I conclude there was a day because Genesis 2:4 says the heaven and the earth was created in a day, verses a night.
The yom in that verse is what shows that all the previous yoms are figurative. The yom could not be a 24 hour day in that verse because the universe is created in that same period.
And think about it, if the earth was created in 1 day, how many days must the millions/billions of other heavenly bodies in the universe have taken to create? If the earth took 1 day, then surely every other planet took 1 day each at least....that would amount to milllions/billions of days, yes?
So could the yom/day in Gen 2:4 really just be 1 24hr day? I dont think so.
ICANT writes:
Isaiah records that God said He did not create it in vain. Same words used here as in Genesis 1:2.
So did God lie to Isaiah or has man been interperting Genesis 1:2 wrong?
you are taking Isaiah out of context. Isaiah 45 is a prophecy about King Cyrus freeing the then captive Jews from their bondage. Thru Isaiah God is reassuring the captives that they will not be left without salvation...He assures them that his purposes will be realised because he did not create them or the earth in vain. He has a purpose and it will be fulfilled.
ICANT writes:
I am saying there was a creation in Genesis 1:1 and the history of that creation was recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:25.
Yep i see what you are saying and i disagree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 05-23-2010 5:18 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by ICANT, posted 05-23-2010 8:24 PM Peg has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024