Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
27 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, CosmicChimp, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (5 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 16 of 295 (566930)
06-28-2010 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by purpledawn
06-27-2010 8:21 PM


Re: Factual Reference
Hi PD,

purpledawn writes:

The verse does not support that Jesus does or doesn't "believe" the story was an actual event. As I showed in Message 11, the use of fictional characters in a speech doesn't mean the speaker feels the character existed in real life. The A&E story is a foundational myth.

Maybe the verse you are talking about doesn't but John had a different take on the situation.

John writes:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.

1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

John knew Jesus personally and he said Jesus created the universe and without Him was not anything made that was made.

So Jesus was there when the man formed from the dust of the ground said:

Genesis 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.

Since Jesus was the one who made the woman from the rib of the man He was the one who delivered her to him.

Jesus had first hand information of what happened in the beginning.

I know you don't believe that but that is your problem not mine.

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 13 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2010 8:21 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by purpledawn, posted 06-28-2010 5:36 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1711 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 17 of 295 (566933)
06-28-2010 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ICANT
06-28-2010 5:09 PM


Re: Factual Reference
This is the Accuracy and Inerrancy Forum, not Bible Study.

The verses in John are the same as the others. It may or may not reflect the personal belief of the writer concerning the reality of the creation stories in Genesis.


Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motion—for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in “The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ICANT, posted 06-28-2010 5:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 18 of 295 (567154)
06-29-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by hepteract
06-25-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
hpteract writes:

While I agree that the main purpose was not as a chronological account, that still doesn't change the fact that it describes man as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up", a clear discrepancy with chapter one.

if we are only focusing on it chronologically, then it is certainly different in that regard, yes.

But, if we look at the difference in the hebrew words that moses used to describe this 'creation' then we find that its not a 'creation' at all.

In vs 19 he mentions the 'forming' of the animals to 'bring them to the man' for him to name. Now this is different to Gen 1:21 where he 'creates' the first of the animals.

In the hebrew interlinear chp1:21 says:
and·he-is-creating (u·ibra) Elohim the·monsters the·great-ones and every-of soul the·livingthe·moving which they-roam the·waters to·species-of·them and every-of flyer-of wing

whereas in chp 2:19 the word changes from creating/u·ibra animals to forming/u·itzr them.
and·he-is-forming (u·itzr) Yahweh Elohim from the·ground every-of animal-of the·field and·every-of flyer-of the·heavens and·he-is-bringing
to the·human to·to-see-of me what ? he-shall-call to·him

This is at least some evidence that Moses was not writing an account of creation. The word moses used for 'form' (itza) does not mean to create from scratch but it means to make something from an existing thing. So in the context of the passage, the existing animals were now used for a new purpose and that purpose was to be named by the man. Isaiah 44:12 is an example of the same word in regards to a coppersmith.

"...the carver of iron with the billhook, he has been busy [at it] with the coals; and with the hammers he proceeds to FORM/ITZA it..."

So the word is used on an 'exisiting' item in this case the man who works on the existing iron....not on something completely uncreated if you know what i mean.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 8:06 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by hepteract, posted 07-04-2010 2:41 PM Peg has responded

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 19 of 295 (567914)
07-03-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by purpledawn
06-28-2010 7:44 AM


Re: Factual Reference
Hey PD,

Sorry I didnt get back to you sooner.

Our debate is if authors in the Bible believed in the creation account. You gave some quotes outside of scripture in which the authors did not believe it to be fact. The problem though, is that we are debating if the Bible authors believed it true. I could also give quotes from early church fathers/Jews that accepted the creation account.

Neither of us though would be showing any evidence from such quotes that the authors of the Bible accepted it as myth or reality.

What evidence internally do you have that Paul or Jesus did not accept it as true?

The OT clearly points to Moses as the author of the first five books. It also claims Moses wrote down the law. I am not saying Moses was the author, which he was not, but the OT does lay out that he was.

Jesus tells his disciples to believe what Moses wrote.

Now to me, this would indicate that Jesus did accept the creation account as true.

Paul no doubt believed in the Genesis account.

Acts 24: 14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, (ESV)

Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—

14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

1 Corinthians 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

2 Corinthians 11:3 (New International Version)
3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

1 Timothy: 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Im sorry PD, I just cannot see how you think Paul believed it was a myth. Paul goes out of his way to connect Jesus with Adam. In fact, he explains why we need Jesus, bc of the first sin by Adam.

His message is that Jesus is needed due to this first sin. Paul also accepted the serpent as leading Eve astray.

Luke even gives the geneology of Jesus, traced right back to Adam. I have a hard time accepting that the author laid out the entire geneology of savior of mankind.............right back to someone who was not real.

Elsewhere in scripture geneologies are used, including Adam. Are you suggesting these authors also didnt accept Adam as a real person?

2 Peter 3: 3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

"Peter" makes mention of the beginning of creation and that the earth was formed out of water. Which is exactly what Genesis states.

Do you believe "Peter" also accepted Genesis as myth yet goes out of his way to compare how the world will end with how it began?

‘Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous’ (1 John 3:12).

Do you think the author of John accpted Cain to be a myth?

There is plenty of evidence to support the authors of the Bible believed the creaton account to be true.

What evidence do you have that they accepted it as a myth?

Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by purpledawn, posted 06-28-2010 7:44 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by purpledawn, posted 07-03-2010 10:20 AM hERICtic has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1711 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 20 of 295 (567934)
07-03-2010 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by hERICtic
07-03-2010 8:37 AM


Fact or Fiction
quote:
Im sorry PD, I just cannot see how you think Paul believed it was a myth. Paul goes out of his way to connect Jesus with Adam. In fact, he explains why we need Jesus, bc of the first sin by Adam.
You're not "listening" to what I'm saying.

PurpleDawn writes:

Message 15
My position on the verses shared so far, is that they don't confirm that Jesus or Paul personally felt that the creation stories were actual historical events.

Message 13
The verse does not support that Jesus does or doesn't "believe" the story was an actual event. As I showed in Message 11, the use of fictional characters in a speech doesn't mean the speaker feels the character existed in real life.

I've shown you evidence from reality that fictional characters can be used in real speeches to make real points. That doesn't mean the fictional character or story is real.

I also showed you church fathers that spoke as though the creation stories were real events, but didn't personally believe they were real events. This is so that you can understand that using fiction within a real speech isn't evidence of what the writer or speaker truly believes about the fiction.

Yes, there are those who probably did absolute believe it was a real event; which makes my point. The writing itself doesn't tell us what Jesus personally believed or what the writer personally believed.

I've written letters and stories for others that don't necessarily reflect my point of view or personal beliefs and I mix fact and fiction. The point of the message is what's important. That is what the writer wants the audience to understand. Whether the creation stories were real events or not was not the point of the verses presented.

quote:
Luke even gives the geneology of Jesus, traced right back to Adam. I have a hard time accepting that the author laid out the entire geneology of savior of mankind.............right back to someone who was not real.

Elsewhere in scripture geneologies are used, including Adam. Are you suggesting these authors also didnt accept Adam as a real person?


There's no way to tell. I consider the Book of Matthew we have today to have originally been a satire. The synoptics were written around or after 70CE.

Mark (65-80CE) - This one had no genealogy
Matthew (80-100CE) - This author was concerned with numerology for his satire purposes. He didn't go to Adam, he started with Abraham.
Luke (80-130CE) - This author supposedly investigated the past, but tends to clash with the OT and only he took the genealogy to Adam. The author was Greek, not Jewish.

We have to remember that the people of the time were inundated with various religions and various gods and goddesses. To attract the Greeks and Romans, his god needed to be as good as theirs. So we still have the potential that the author is presenting fact with fiction.

Notice the bulk of the Jews weren't buying into this religion, but gentiles did. Who in this scenario didn't grow up knowing the legends of the Jews? Odds are the gentiles.

People don't live to be over 600 or 900 years old. The Redactor added the ages for his purposes.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

The NT can't tell us what Jesus or the writers personally believed concerning the creation stories.

quote:
Paul no doubt believed in the Genesis account.

Acts 24: 14 But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, (ESV)


YHWH is the God of Abraham.

Acts 7:32
"I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob....

Those are the fathers Paul speaks of, not Adam.

The rest of the verses again can simply be a writer using a foundational myth to make a point. All we have is the end product, not the personal thoughts behind the letter.

quote:
What evidence do you have that they accepted it as a myth?
Since the authors are unknown, except for Paul, there is not way to know their actual personal beliefs on the subject. There is no concrete evidence either way.

Given that Paul was Jewish and knew the Jewish Legends and Myths, we have no way of knowing what his actual personal belief concerning the creation stories. His writings are not concrete evidence since it is possible to write contrary to personal belief to make a point.

I understand Paul's lessons and I don't feel the Genesis stories are actual events. Whether the creation stories are fact or fiction does not change Paul's point. It may affect Christian Doctrine, but that's not Paul's problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by hERICtic, posted 07-03-2010 8:37 AM hERICtic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by hERICtic, posted 07-03-2010 12:57 PM purpledawn has responded

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 21 of 295 (567951)
07-03-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by purpledawn
07-03-2010 10:20 AM


Re: Fact or Fiction
PD writes:

Yes, there are those who probably did absolute believe it was a real event; which makes my point. The writing itself doesn't tell us what Jesus personally believed or what the writer personally believed.

I disagree. I have trouble accepting that the author of Luke starts off by stating he "verified" his writing and that they are true....

Then proceeds to give a make believe geneology. He may be wrong in some aspects or made some mistakes but I have no doubt what he wrote he believed to be fact. There does not lie any evidence to suggest otherwise.

I have trouble accepting that Paul believed the creation account false, yet proceeds to preach that the reason Jesus was sent was to absolve the sin passed along by Adam.

PD writes:

Notice the bulk of the Jews weren't buying into this religion, but gentiles did. Who in this scenario didn't grow up knowing the legends of the Jews? Odds are the gentiles.

How do you know this? What evidence do you have that suggests the Jews at that time frame accepted it as myth? I realize today, most accept it as allegory. Of course, that could be based upon the fact science contradicts with the Genesis account.

PD writes:

Given that Paul was Jewish and knew the Jewish Legends and Myths, we have no way of knowing what his actual personal belief concerning the creation stories. His writings are not concrete evidence since it is possible to write contrary to personal belief to make a point.

This is the foundation of our debate.

The OT does not give any indication if Genesis is a myth. You havent given any evidence that ancient Jews knew it was a myth. So how do you know what Paul believed was legend and myth?

I realize you can say (and you have) that there really isnt any way of knowing....but obviously we're going to have to go with the evidence we do have. His words.

There isnt any indication in his words that he was speaking of parables, allegory or metaphors concering the Genesis account.

Answer me this. Perhaps this would shed some light upon what I am asking.

Lets assume Paul believed Adam was a myth. Paul obviously believed and preached that Jesus was necessary bc of Adams actions.

If Adam was a myth, what is the point of Jesus? Why would Paul preach that Jesus is necessary if Adam was make believe?

He lied?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by purpledawn, posted 07-03-2010 10:20 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by purpledawn, posted 07-03-2010 4:03 PM hERICtic has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31258
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 22 of 295 (567953)
07-03-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by hepteract
06-25-2010 7:59 PM


Re: Infallible or Inerrant
There a few things in your post that I have problems with. For example:

"hepteract" writes:

Now while some scripture probably does assert the infallibility of scripture, I have now made clear that what I meant was inerrancy. Many parts of the New Testament in particular state inerrancy:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

2 Timothy 3:16, NIV

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Matthew 5:18, NIV

While I agree that many Christians use such passages to defend their clam of biblical inerrancy, I believe they are simply quotemining and then pretending that what is taken out of context supports their fantasy.

Let's begin with the classic 2 Timmy quote. While it is questionable who actually wrote 2 Timmy, is is still likely fairly early, likely still written during the first 100 years CE.

At that time there were still few Judaic Canons, basically only the first five books, the Torah. The Gospels had not yet been written and there were NO Christian Canons.

When the author of 2 Timmy mentions scripture he is certainly not talking about "The Bible™".

The second quotemine you mention is again referring to specific texts, to the Laws, not to the Bible. In that example later books that eventually were included in the various canons contradict it.

But neither of those has anything to do with Genesis 1 or Genesis 2&3.

So, is there any indication that the editors, redactors and committees that put together the different and disparate Bibles considered them as fable or myth and recognized that they were not factual?

IMHO, the answer is "Most certainly."

The evidence is that both Genesis 1 as well as Genesis 2&3 were canonized and even the chronological order of the stories changed placing the younger, newer Genesis 1 story before the much older Genesis 2&3 tale.

As you point out in the OP, the two tales are mutually exclusive. The orders of creation are different, the methods are different, even the Gods described in the two tales are entirely different.

The people that edited the sacred books, that complied the stories, that decided on the different canons were not stupid. They could see the contradictions as easily as you did.

So the question should be "Why did those committees, those editors, those redactors include both tales with all the contradictions intact?"

IMHO there are valid explanations.

First, the tales show a snapshot of how the peoples viewed what a God should be at that time. In the older tale the god is very human, hands on, a tinkerer, unsure, afraid but also close, personal, caring, concerned. In the younger tale the god is aloof, overarching, totally competent, creating only by and act of will but also separate, not interacting with what is created.

The two tales also served different purposes. Genesis 1 is an actual creation myth while Genesis 2&3 were a "Just so Story" meant to explain why the world was as it was, why we feared snakes, why we had to work to grow food instead of just browsing like the other animals, why childbirth seemed more painful for women than the other animals, why women should be subservient to man.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 7:59 PM hepteract has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1711 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 23 of 295 (567971)
07-03-2010 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by hERICtic
07-03-2010 12:57 PM


Re: Fact or Fiction
quote:
The OT does not give any indication if Genesis is a myth. You havent given any evidence that ancient Jews knew it was a myth. So how do you know what Paul believed was legend and myth?
This is the accuracy and inerrancy thread, not Bible Study. You won't find the information inside the text. That's not the purpose of the text.

I've already shown you from outside the text that Jews and Christians are able to write contrary to their personal beliefs when it comes to the creation stories.

I've also shown you that before the first century many Jews knew the Laws didn't go back to Moses. So there was Bible criticism before Christ. Message 15 Also note that before Jesus, many Jews were also looking to get rid of the sacrificial system. It was gross and expensive. If you understand that, then you'll understand Paul better.

I've also told you that Jesus and Paul were learned in Jewish techniques for argument and midrash.

D’rash (pronounced deh-rahsh' also called "Midrash")

This is a teaching or exposition or application of the P'shat and/or Remez. (In some cases this could be considered comparable to a "sermon.") For instance, Biblical writers may take two or more unrelated verses and combine them to create a verse(s) with a third meaning.

There are three rules to consider when utilizing the d'rash interpretation of a text:

1. A drash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat."
2. Let scripture interpret scripture. Look for the scriptures themselves to define the components of an allegory.
3. The primary components of an allegory represent specific realities. We should limit ourselves to these primary components when understanding the text.

These are not styles that we are familiar with today (unless one is Jewish). Do you understand that?

Also understand that the A&E story is not necessary for the Jewish religion. Abraham is the beginning of their religion.

Those who later crafted Original Sin made the A&E story foundational to that Christian doctrine. Paul didn't promote original sin.

quote:
Lets assume Paul believed Adam was a myth. Paul obviously believed and preached that Jesus was necessary bc of Adams actions.
I don't mind getting into a discussion on Paul with you, but Paul is difficult and it takes time to write a reasonable answer. If I do this and all I get from you is, "I disagree show me something else." I'm not going to continue. Back up your disagreement with something comparable, not just another question.

Remember that Paul's ministry to the gentiles came after Jesus' death. He wasn't one of Jesus' disciples and didn't go to the original disciples until much later after his conversion. I don't feel the original disciples presented Jesus as a sacrifice to forgive sins like the Temple sacrifices were.

Paul used sacrificial language to "sell" his gospel, but it didn't replace the temple sacrifices. The original disciples encouraged Paul to participate in sacrifices in the Temple. If they felt these sacrifices were superfluous, they wouldn't have encouraged Paul to participate.

Also remember than there was no atonement sacrifice for intentional sins. Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins

Hebrews 10:26 (Not Pauline)
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins

Paul preached against sin and presented Jesus' death as a guilt offering for unintentional sins. The resurrection was acceptance of the offering. Whether Adam is real or not is irrelevant to the point. People know they sin. Paul's creative reasoning for why we sin doesn't change his point. Sacrifices for atonement were a common practice in that day. Even if Paul said sin is just in our nature, but I have the perfect fix for it so God will forgive you; the point is the same. Jews knew the story and Gentiles probably had a similar story to draw from. It doesn't really matter where our "sinful" nature really comes from. The average person doesn't want the details and it doesn't make for a good sales speech.

quote:
If Adam was a myth, what is the point of Jesus? Why would Paul preach that Jesus is necessary if Adam was make believe?

He lied?


You're going to have to tell me what scripture you looking at. Not all letters attributed to Paul are actually by Paul.


Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motion—for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in “The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion”

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by hERICtic, posted 07-03-2010 12:57 PM hERICtic has not yet responded

hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 24 of 295 (568149)
07-04-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
06-29-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
This is true, but it doesn't address what I said: Man is described as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up". Any inconsistency proves falsehood of at least one of the stories, which proves that the Bible is not inerrant.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 06-29-2010 7:43 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM hepteract has responded
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 10:04 PM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 25 of 295 (568151)
07-04-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by purpledawn
06-27-2010 9:49 AM


Re: Factual Reference
You clearly aren't understanding the grammatical aspect of this. Jesus is saying that because god created man and woman for each other, sanctity of marriage should be kept. He's not using the story as an example, he's clearly stating that the event of woman being created for man by god is the REASON. As I said before, I wouldn't say that women are evil BECAUSE Pandora opened the box, I would specify that it is representative of woman's evil. Jesus is clearly stating that it is BECAUSE god created woman for man, a reference he clearly believes is factual, that the sanctity of marriage should be kept. Understand?

Edited by hepteract, : No reason given.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2010 9:49 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 1:08 PM hepteract has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 26 of 295 (568209)
07-04-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by hepteract
07-04-2010 2:41 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
Hi hepteract,

Welcome to EvC.

hepteract writes:

This is true, but it doesn't address what I said: Man is described as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up". Any inconsistency proves falsehood of at least one of the stories, which proves that the Bible is not inerrant.

But there is no inconsistency in the two stories. They are two different stories of events that took place billions of years apart in our time.

The story in Genesis 2:4-4:24 took place in the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth. This would require them to happen prior to Genesis 1:2.

The story in Genesis 1:2-2:3 took place some 6,000+ years ago.

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 24 by hepteract, posted 07-04-2010 2:41 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 2:18 AM ICANT has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3184 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 27 of 295 (568212)
07-04-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by hepteract
07-04-2010 2:41 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
hepteract writes:

This is true, but it doesn't address what I said: Man is described as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up". Any inconsistency proves falsehood of at least one of the stories, which proves that the Bible is not inerrant.

its not a chronological account...its as simple as that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by hepteract, posted 07-04-2010 2:41 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 2:14 AM Peg has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 28 of 295 (568252)
07-05-2010 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hepteract
06-25-2010 2:48 PM


quote:
Once again, the orders are as such: Genesis 1: Animals, Plants, Man & Woman. Genesis 2: Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.

This contradiction seems to debunk the inerrancy of the bible. This thread is to provide a place for debate as to whether or not it actually does.



Whether or not this is a real "contradiction" or whether it implies an "error" depends on one's interpretation of the text, and is not as straightforward as you seem to believe.

If Gen 1 and 2 are interpreted as literally as possible, with the Hebrew waw-consecutive (preterite) forms taken as strictly consecutive, then there indeed seems to be a contradiction. But I see this as an argument that they should not be interpreted quite so literally.

If one believes that Gen 1 and 2 are both divinely inspired, then one will look for ways to reconcile them. Or if one believes that the author (or redactor) understood what he was writing, one will likewise look for ways to reconcile them. Following this approach, one interprets the chapters not quite so literally, in light of one another.

Or if one believes that they are stories from different traditions, one can accept that they are not strictly consistent with one another, but that they both reveal truth and that they represent no "error."

So the first questions to be asked are: What the original author(s) was trying to communicate in chapters 1 and 2? How are they meant to be understood? Their different perspectives don't necessarily imply error.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 2:48 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 8:58 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 9:44 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 29 of 295 (568255)
07-05-2010 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
07-04-2010 10:04 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
Even if its purpose is not as a chronological account, for it to be inerrant it still needs to keep consistent. The statement that plants did not exist when man was created is a clear and stark contradiction with what was said in chapter one. Even if the passage as a whole serves a different purpose, that particular sentence is stating a chronological order that is inconsistent with the order described just verses before.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 10:04 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 8:39 PM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3269 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 30 of 295 (568257)
07-05-2010 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
07-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
That theory is obviously flawed, since the fact remains that genesis 1 describes plants being created before man and genesis 2 describes a man who was created before any plants.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2010 10:41 AM hepteract has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019