Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Well both relate the same god creating male and female humans. Both refer to this same god making heaven and Earth. Both refer to this god creating the other animals.Then you get the details of what order things were made in and where exactly these creations were placed initially. Only someone who considers the bible to be inerrant would see this as anything but two contradictory creation myths rather than the convuluted sequential mess you have convinced yourself of.

It shows that insisting that we look at two pieces of writing, focusing solely on differences in wording and then declaring that they must be completely unrelated because there is not 100% agreement is kinda dum.

Why would you do anything so silly? OK. Let's go with this and see where we end up.ICANT how do you know that the Earth being talked about in each story is the same Earth? After all the humans weren't the same humans were they? And as you have pointed out there were differences in terms of the description of the location and the method of populating each place with animals. So why do you think the "Earth" in each story is the same place?So these other humans could still exist on this other Earth couldn't they?After all no mention of how the other humans died out has ever been made has it? So on what basis do you conclude that they don't still exist on this other Earth?

Yes two completely seperate books would seem to have even more claim to be unrelated than two chapters from the same book. No?So the case for two Darwins is strengthened. As you put it "Thanks for confirming my affirmation".

Ah. So your premise is that if there are any seeming contradictions between these two sections of the bible then (rather than errors of any sort) these must be referring to different events. Rather unsurprisingly you then conclude that there are two stories because the descriptions in each are not entirely compatible. Well done. Well how do we know it was the same Earth? As you have already made clear the use of the same name doesn't necessarily mean the same thing in each of the two stories does it? There are two species of "man" (one that is of Gods image and one that was created from the dust of the ground right?). There are two places in which these different species of man are placed (one with a forbidden tree and one without right?) Why is earth necessarily the same in the two stories? The whole thing makes far more sense if the two events are completely separate.It would be entirely compatible with scripture if the first humans were created on one Earth and still existed today and the second existed on this earth wouldn't it?

To inform us of these other "humans" and this other "earth" such that we can seek them out. Thus meaning that SETI is gods work. And I am affirming that these differences can be explained by two different earths.(**to paraphrase you elsewhere in this thread**)Your problem is you only have what is written in the first 2 chapters of Genesis to refute what is written in those 2 chapters.Can you refute my two earths affirmation based on what was written in the first 2 chapters of Genesis?Or not?

Well how do we know we can't? Or if we cannot currently that we will not be able to one day? And even if we cannot why would god not want to let us know we are not alone in the universe? Go on then. I don't think you can. No. My aim is to show that your affirmation derived from literal interpretation is making some very selective and baseless assumptions.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You can no more refute my two earths interpretation than anyone can refute your two created human species interpretation. That is my point. But what is it that you want to debate? Your literal interpretation of the assumption that these two portions of the bible are inerrant and conflicting thus requiring two stories? The highly specific particulars of the two stories that you think reconcile these seeming contradictions that ignore all the other possible interpretations that could be made?Why is your seemingly bizarre interpretation any more valid than my two earths interpretation? Why do you think that your irrefutable interpretation is any more worthy of consideration than mine?Do you not see that your reaction to my two earths interpretation is exactly how others feel about your two creations/two human species "affirmation"?Can you not see that?

ICANT originally writes:

quote:

---

I am approaching these two stories as written in the KJV Bible as the absolute truth.
I am affirming what is said in the KJV Bible
Nothing matters except what is written in the KJV Bible as that is all that I am affirming in this thread
Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No

---

So basically you agree that my two earths affirmation is just as valid as your interpretation of what is actually written in the KJV bible. But now you want to move the goalposts by claiming that the KJV bible is a poor translation in the areas on which my affirmation depends .Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No Well I don’t claim to know anything about Hebrew at all but a cursory search for this term on the internet revealed that this word is most commonly translated as was. The fact remains that your silly two human creations affirmation is no more or less valid than my own silly two earths interpretation.All of which just goes to show the folly of taking these myths literally, reading too much into the specifics of any interpretation or treating any of it as some sort of ultimate guide to truth. You can’t refute my two earths affirmation based only on what the KJV bible has recorded in it either. Instead you have to move the goalposts and deny that the word in question has been translated correctly and in doing so you refute your own premise that what the KJV bible has recorded in it is the absolute truth.Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/NoEdited by Straggler, : SpellingEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Because as a means of investigating the world such methods have been found to be significantly more reliable than deeply subjective interpretations of ancient myths. And as you have acknowledged the text as actually written solely in the KJV bible supports my two earths affirmation.

And as I will keep pointing out - The KJV text as written verse by verse supports a two earths interpretation.If you are going to say that the KJV bible contains errors of translation then you have contradicted the entire premise of your own thread - Namely that the two stories as presented in the KJV bible are the "absolute truth".ICANT writes:

quote:

---

I am approaching these two stories as written in the KJV Bible as the absolute truth.

​

I am affirming what is said in the KJV Bible

​

Nothing matters except what is written in the KJV Bible as that is all that I am affirming in this thread

​

Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No

---

You can be vaguely forgiven for saying silly things in the science threads but this bible stuff is meant to be your specialist subject. Yet the bare minimum of analysis has shown you to be guilty of muddled thinking and contradictory nonsense.

So the KJV bible is the "absolute truth" but it contains human errors of translation and thus cannot be taken literally. Thus you have completely contradicted yourself.ICANT writes:

quote:

---

I am approaching these two stories as written in the KJV Bible as the absolute truth.

​

I am affirming what is said in the KJV Bible

​

Nothing matters except what is written in the KJV Bible as that is all that I am affirming in this thread

​

Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No

---

But anyway moving on. Here "Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; Hayah is the first-person singular imperfect form" or here Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew or here Hebrew grammar link quoted belowFrankly I have no interest in debating Hebrew with you so I will leave it at that. But it should be obvious to all that you are being as selective in your translations as you are your interpretations of the "absolute truth" of the KJV bible.

So can we take the KJV bible as written to be the "absolute truth"? Or not? My first source explicitly says ""Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew".But you can wriggle and writhe, twist and turn as much as you want ICANT. It is obvious to all that you are selectively translating and selectively interpreting to "affirm" your own personal opinion.

So can we take the KJV bible as written to be the "absolute truth"? Or not? Ah "emphasis". ICANT previously writes:

quote:

---

I am approaching these two stories as written in the KJV Bible as the absolute truth.

​

I am affirming what is said in the KJV Bible

​

Nothing matters except what is written in the KJV Bible as that is all that I am affirming in this thread

​

Do you agree that the KJV Bible says what it says? Yes/No

---

A change of goal posts then?

So your position in this thread is that the KJV bible is poorly translated and thus cannot be taken literally? ICANT every definition I found of that word on the internet specified past tense and specifically cited "was".Thus taken as written the KJV bible indisputably supports my two earths "affirmation". Do you deny this?