Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8937 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (7 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,875 Year: 16,911/19,786 Month: 1,036/2,598 Week: 282/251 Day: 10/43 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6188
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 31 of 295 (568361)
07-05-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by hepteract
07-05-2010 2:18 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
Hi hepteract,

hepteract writes:

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.

What is obviously flawed in your reading ability and comphrension.

If two events are separated by billions of years in our time what difference does it make what the order of events that take place in each event have to do with each other?

If the two events are a story about the same event there is a contradiction.

There is no contradiction in the events that take place in Genesis 1:2-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-4:24.

Genesis 2:4-Genesis 4:24 is the history of the DAY the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth as claimed in Genesis 2:4.

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,

According to this scripture the events following it to their conclusion happened in the DAY God created the Heaven and the Earth.

The only way that could happen is if there was a light period of undetermined existence in which all the events took place. How long was that light period? No one knows Moses did not tell us. It did come to an end as we find darkness in Genesis 1:2.

The events that took place in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3 took place about 6,000+ years ago.

Since they are talking about two different events separated by a vast existence there is no contradiction.

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 30 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 2:18 AM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 8:51 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 59 by ramoss, posted 07-23-2010 11:01 AM ICANT has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1717 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 32 of 295 (568387)
07-05-2010 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by hepteract
07-04-2010 2:49 PM


Re: Factual Reference
quote:
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?
Wow, you didn’t even address the arguments I made in Message 11. Apparently you’re not an avid reader.

Let’s look at the argument that Jesus was making.

You summarize it as saying that because God created man and woman for each other, the sanctity of marriage should be kept. You say that he's clearly stating that the event of woman being created for man by god is the REASON.

That’s not what Jesus said. You’re making that assumption because you know the A&E story. Jesus pulled a line from each story to make his own point. The first line is alluding to Genesis 1.

But at the beginning of creation God made them male and female.

The second is the narrator’s conclusion from the A&E story.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will be come one flesh.

After 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

Then the narrator stated that this is why a man will leave his family and cleave to his wife. Adam and Eve didn’t have a family, so the narrator is talking about his own culture.

Oddly enough at the time of Jesus a man didn’t leave his family and unite with his wife. The wife left her family (bought by the husband) to join the man's family.

In the book “How People Lived in the Bible” (Thomas Nelson Publishers) we have this information.

In ancient times, marriage had very little to do with love. It had everything to do with babies. The whole point of a marriage was procreation. … Although new parents were happy to have a daughter, every couple hoped their newborn would be a son. You see, men stayed with a family and increased its size and wealth by bringing in their own wives, and still more children.

So the Genesis statement about a man leaving his family doesn’t even match with the reality of the time.

No matter what god one believes in or even if one doesn’t believe in a god, humans procreate sexually, not asexually. This characteristic is shared by mammals, most reptiles and flowering plants. For those who believe in a god, God created all of those male and female also, but that has nothing to do with marriage.

In some Jewish and Christian interpretations, the “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 refers to a baby. In reality, two people cannot become one flesh.

So Jesus’ argument is that since God made mankind male and female, a man will leave his parents and be united with a woman and the two will become one. Then he makes his conclusion:

Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.

This argument doesn’t really follow since making mankind male and female doesn’t say which males and females go together. Divorce and remarriage doesn't negate male and female procreation. In their reality, the parents decided who would be paired up. Females could be married as young as 13. He also could be referencing something from the Jewish marriage ceremony of the time. I can't find anything on what the ancient ceremony entailed.

Jesus is making an argument against divorcing for minor reasons as I showed in Message 11. He isn’t necessarily implying that the Genesis accounts are fact.

Notice that in his explanation to his disciples he says, “And if a woman divorces her husband…” That’s only allowed in Greek and Roman law, not Jewish. Jesus didn’t preach to the Gentiles. The author made a mistake or expanded a teaching made by Jesus to include the Gentiles.

I’ve shown you that fiction can be used to make a point in reality without deeming the fiction to be fact.

Please address my arguments and the questions I asked you in Message 11.

What is your evidence that the reference means the speaker thought the event as written in Genesis was an actual event?

Are the gentlemen who referenced Gekko saying that the movie was a factual account and Gordon Gekko is not a fictional character?

How do you discern a story is fiction?

How do you know the Pandora story is fiction?

How you present Pandora's box serves your purpose it isn't evidence that Jesus personally believed the Genesis stories to be actual events.

Considering that divorce and remarriage are still allowed in Judaism his argument apparently didn't make an impression. Since divorce and remarriage are allowed among most sects of Christianity, his argument still didn't stick.

It wasn't a sound argument. What is written isn't concrete evidence that Jesus personally believed the creation stories were factual events.


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 25 by hepteract, posted 07-04-2010 2:49 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 8:46 PM purpledawn has responded

Peg
Member (Idle past 3189 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 33 of 295 (568430)
07-05-2010 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by hepteract
07-05-2010 2:14 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
hepteract writes:

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.


firstly, Gen 2 is talking about the GARDEN OF EDEN, that is the subject.
In line with that subject we read that there are no 'plants' and the earth had not been cultivated because there was no man.
I dont believe this is refering to all vegetation of the entire earth because when Adam was removed from the garden, the earth outside did have vegetation in it which was uncultivated and a lot of hard work for Adam.

When God forms the man he places him in the GARDEN as opposed to the FIELD. In vs 8 he says he is planting the garden and PLACING THE MAN THERE. This shows that the garden existed before the man otherwise how could God place the man in the garden if it wasnt already existing?

Then vs9 says he's causing to sprout every tree 'good to sight'
So again, the food trees were already there otherwise how could it be said that Adam could see that they were 'good to sight'?

hebrew interlinear writes:

Gen2:7 and·he-is-forming Yahweh Elohim the·human soil from the·ground

VS8 and·he-is-planting Yahweh Elohim garden in·Eden and·he-is-placing
there the·human whom he-formed

VS9 and·he-is-causing-to-sprout Yahweh Elohim from the·ground every-of tree being-coveted to·sight and·good for·food

There is a difference between the entire uncultivated earth and the cultivated garden which God made as a home for the man. The garden was a starting point of cultivated ground...from there Adam would continue to cultivate the rest of the earth until the entire globe became a cultivated paradise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 2:14 AM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 9:08 PM Peg has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3274 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 34 of 295 (568433)
07-05-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by purpledawn
07-05-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Factual Reference
I'm not disputing Jesus' purposes. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the statements he made show clear belief in the genesis account of creation:

Main Entry: there·fore
Pronunciation: \ˈther-ˌfȯr\
Function: adverb
Date: 14th century
1 a : for that reason : consequently b : because of that c : on that ground
2 : to that end

Main Entry: be·cause
Pronunciation: \bi-ˈkȯz, -ˈkəz, -ˈkȯs, bē-\
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English because that, because, from by cause that
Date: 14th century
1 : for the reason that : since
2 : the fact that : that

Main Entry: 1rea·son
Pronunciation: \ˈrē-zən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
Date: 13th century
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification b : a rational ground or motive c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause

^From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

Jesus, having used the word therefore, was clearly saying that god's creation of woman for man was the underlying reason that the two should not separate. You clearly have a poor understanding of language. To drive the point through, i'll even get the greek definitions:

eneken toutou: on account of this

^from scripture4all.org

A fictional example is never the underlying cause, and since Jesus was so worded in law and argument he would not have committed this fallacy.

As for my failure to respond to message 11, I apologize for not having the free time to research and type for hours at a time. In any case, I wasn't arguing Jesus' motives in the first place, so I see no need to.


"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 32 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 1:08 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 9:38 PM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3274 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 35 of 295 (568434)
07-05-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
07-05-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
I didn't want to bring this up, but the 'creation took place over billions of years' theory doesn't hold since plants can't go without the sun for a day, as would have needed to occur. That's off-topic though. As for my reading comprehension, it's your writing ability (or lack thereof) which made me misunderstand your point. You seemed to assume I already realized you believed that genesis 1 took place after genesis 2. State your thesis before you support it. Or at all. Either's better than trying to make me figure it out like a puzzle.


"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 31 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2010 10:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3274 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 36 of 295 (568436)
07-05-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by kbertsche
07-05-2010 1:20 AM


That doesn't work. If the passage brings up the order, even if the order is not its purpose, it must keep consistent. If the words used could be interpreted as not being a description of order, then your argument would be sound. However I fail to see how "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up" can be interpreted as not meaning man was created before 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 28 by kbertsche, posted 07-05-2010 1:20 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by kbertsche, posted 07-06-2010 7:45 PM hepteract has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3274 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 37 of 295 (568439)
07-05-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
07-05-2010 8:39 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
The passage there clearly describes the garden as having been created after man, with man being placed there after both were created.

Since it was on earth, as shown by the fact that real rivers were used to denote its location, it would have fallen under that category ('on the earth').


"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 33 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 8:39 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 07-07-2010 3:20 AM hepteract has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1717 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 38 of 295 (568444)
07-05-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by hepteract
07-05-2010 8:46 PM


Re: Factual Reference
quote:
I'm not disputing Jesus' purposes. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the statements he made show clear belief in the genesis account of creation:
No they don't.

quote:
Jesus, having used the word therefore, was clearly saying that god's creation of woman for man was the underlying reason that the two should not separate. You clearly have a poor understanding of language. To drive the point through, i'll even get the greek definitions:
This isn't about definitions.

quote:
A fictional example is never the underlying cause, and since Jesus was so worded in law and argument he would not have committed this fallacy.
What fallacy? He's making a reasoned argument for his time to clergy. Being made male and female wasn't the cause and that isn't what it says in Genesis.

This comment attributed to Jesus is not evidence for or against the claim that the creation stories were actual events. As I've shown, fiction can and has been used to make a valid point.

quote:
As for my failure to respond to message 11, I apologize for not having the free time to research and type for hours at a time. In any case, I wasn't arguing Jesus' motives in the first place, so I see no need to.
Understood.


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 34 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 8:46 PM hepteract has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 10:58 PM purpledawn has responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1717 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 39 of 295 (568445)
07-05-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by kbertsche
07-05-2010 1:20 AM


Redactor Makes a Tale
quote:
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.
You may not like to talk about purpose, but that's what this is about.

The Gen 2 writer wrote his story. A few hundred years later or so the Gen 1 writer wrote his story. Then a several hundred years after that the Redactor put them together. Each had their purpose.

The order was irrelevant to the Redactor's purpose for joining the stories. If it was an issue, he would have changed it. If I put two stories together on purpose, it is not an error. When people read to tell a story, no one goes back to compare the consistency. The average person didn't have a book to analyze. They just listened to the story.

Edited by purpledawn, : Subtitle


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 28 by kbertsche, posted 07-05-2010 1:20 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:53 AM purpledawn has responded

hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3274 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 40 of 295 (568455)
07-05-2010 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
07-05-2010 9:38 PM


Re: Factual Reference
I disagree. The definitions of the Greek words Jesus used tell us what he meant, and the definitions I provided show that he was describing the events as a factual basis for a legal/philosophical precedent.


"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 38 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 9:38 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2010 9:06 AM hepteract has not yet responded
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 9:20 AM hepteract has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1687 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 41 of 295 (568462)
07-06-2010 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by purpledawn
07-05-2010 9:44 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
As is currently interpreted, the stories are contradictory. That does not mean that the Bible is contradictory. Another interpretation could make it perfectly accurate history.

Take the Garden of Eden. Once one realizes that it is talking about the start of Agriculture, there is no contradiction. The plants created after Adam are only the plants of the field. All scientists would agree that domesticated plants were created after man, in fact by man. They did not exist when there was no man to till the soil. The plants were domesticated immediately after the Younger Dryas, when the rains finally returned.

The location is between the Tigris and Euphrates, in the zone where figs and wheat grows. There is only one mountain there, the volcano Karacadag. German scientists state that wheat was domesticated there, along with Chickpeas, lentils and sheep there or the immediate area.

Of course, either mankind was created there, or Gen 1 creation of man was in Kenya area, and was a completely different event. This is a reasonable interpretation also.

Other details, such as the talking serpent are also true, in that they are referring to religious beliefs of the time. The bible, linking the Serpent to Satan, is rejecting this other religious belief.

As it turns out, the story of Adam in the Garden is more accurate than even the fundamentalists teach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 9:44 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2010 9:14 AM greentwiga has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1717 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 42 of 295 (568485)
07-06-2010 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by hepteract
07-05-2010 10:58 PM


Re: Factual Reference
quote:
I disagree. The definitions of the Greek words Jesus used tell us what he meant, and the definitions I provided show that he was describing the events as a factual basis for a legal/philosophical precedent.
Still you don't address the arguments I've made. The definitions only tell us what the words mean, not necessarily what Jesus believed personally.

Even if someone used the argument today that since mankind evolved to procreate sexually, married couples should not divorce except when one partner has sex with someone else. Therefore, what nature has joined together let man not separate. It still isn't a valid argument because the fact that mankind procreates male and female has nothing to do with marriage in general or an individual marriage. The author has Jesus appealing to the authority of God.

Please address the arguments I'm making. I promoted this topic to the science forum because you wanted to discuss inerrancy and you made it clear to ICANT that you didn't want the Bible as the last word. So far you aren't addressing arguments made from outside the Bible.


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 40 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 10:58 PM hepteract has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1717 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 43 of 295 (568486)
07-06-2010 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by greentwiga
07-06-2010 12:53 AM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
quote:
As it turns out, the story of Adam in the Garden is more accurate than even the fundamentalists teach.
Accurate about what?

Since the Redactor joined the two stories without fixing the order, this is evidence that he knew they were foundational myths. The creation stories weren't critical to the Jewish religion.

It wasn't an error when he linked the two stories.


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 41 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:53 AM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:22 PM purpledawn has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31282
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 44 of 295 (568487)
07-06-2010 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by hepteract
07-05-2010 10:58 PM


Re: Factual Reference
So what?

Even if Jesus happened to think they were factual, that does not imply that the folk that wrote the stories thought they were factual or that they were factual.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 10:58 PM hepteract has not yet responded

greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1687 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 45 of 295 (568534)
07-06-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by purpledawn
07-06-2010 9:14 AM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
Since the Redactor joined the two stories without fixing the order, this is evidence that he knew they were foundational myths. The creation stories weren't critical to the Jewish religion.

Redactor? Sounds like you made an interpretation and now treat the interpretation as fact. If you approach the story of Gen 2-4 with fresh eyes, you find that many things that were thought to be errors are fact.

I mentioned how everyone seems to think that the plants created in Gen 2 is all plants. When I studied the use of "of the field," I saw it was contrasted with "wild." Understanding that the verse means domesticated plants removes the contradiction with Gen 1, and with science.

Read all about the oracle at Delphi. There was an ancient worship that included talking to a serpent. In Gen 3, God roundly rejected that worship.

Shall we talk about how Jared Diamond in Guns, germs, and steel describes the region and the most favorably blessed of any in the world?

How about the location being exactly where scientists say plants were first domesticated. It even has 4 rivers starting out of the same snowpack.

I could go on. Ask questions about specifics instead of just making a general statement about some redactor that gives no handle to disagree with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2010 9:14 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 07-06-2010 12:36 PM greentwiga has responded
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2010 8:22 PM greentwiga 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