Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, GDR (3 members, 28 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
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 46 of 295 (568536)
07-06-2010 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by greentwiga
07-06-2010 12:22 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
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?

Please provide the reference where he says this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:22 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by greentwiga, posted 07-07-2010 12:50 PM Theodoric has responded

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


Message 47 of 295 (568574)
07-06-2010 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by hepteract
07-05-2010 8:58 PM


quote:
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.

1) if the order is topical rather than chronological, it could be different in two different accounts which have different purposes. PD's Redactor Makes a Tale (Message 39) relates to this (maybe she accidently replied to me instead of to you?)
2) Gen 2:5-7 is probably not talking about all plant life, as others have said here. Note the parallel in the logic. Two things had not appeared, because two conditions had not been met. First, there was no wild desert vegetation, because there had been no rain. Second, there was no cultivated grain, because there was no man to cultivate it. (For a well-done, detailed exegesis of this passage, see "Because it had rained" by Mark Futato, Westminster Theological Journal 60:1-21 (1998), available on the internet.)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 8:58 PM hepteract has not yet responded

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


Message 48 of 295 (568579)
07-06-2010 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by greentwiga
07-06-2010 12:22 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
quote:
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.
Redactor is from the Documentary Hypothesis.

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

I asked accurate about what? You gave me nothing specific to ask about.

So you're saying the A&E story is accurate with science. Is that science of today or then?

Even if the story didn't match with our science at all, that still doesn't make either story in error.

I don't consider the stories to have errors.

If Moses wrote the whole thing, he wrote it that way on purpose and therefore it is not an error.

If the two stories were written by two different authors, again there is no error.

If a Redactor spliced them together, he had a purpose for doing so in spite of the order difference. Again, no error.

Looking to any creation story for scientific facts is an error on the part of the searcher.

The writers wrote about their surroundings, so if some parts of the story matches the area it shouldn't be a surprise. It doesn't make the story an actual event though.

Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.


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 45 by greentwiga, posted 07-06-2010 12:22 PM greentwiga has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Peg, posted 07-07-2010 4:17 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 53 by greentwiga, posted 07-07-2010 12:58 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 49 of 295 (568598)
07-07-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by hepteract
07-05-2010 9:08 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
hepteract writes:

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').

if the garden was created after the man, where was the man placed while the garden was being created?
Moses does not mention any temporary abiding place for the man...he only says that God planted a garden and placed the man in it. So it would be illogical to assume that God made the garden after he made adam.

Anyway, if you want a chronological account of creation you have to look at chpt 1 because chpt 2 is not a chronological account and it doesnt have to be....its purpose is different to chpt 1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by hepteract, posted 07-05-2010 9:08 PM hepteract has not yet responded

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


Message 50 of 295 (568599)
07-07-2010 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
07-06-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
purpledawn, that documentary hypothesis is extremly old...dating back to wellhausen in the late 1800's
this may be off topic but i just wanted to mention that in line with the topic, you cant really use the old wellhausen theory to try and prove your point becasue that theory has been shown to not be entirely accurate.

In the 80's a group of researchers at the Technion Institute in Haifa did a linguistic analysis of the book of Genesis by feeding its 20,000 words into a computer program which studies word usage and occurrence. The results were reported and the newer conclusion is that at least 82% of the pentacheut had only one author.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2010 8:22 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 07-07-2010 8:25 AM Peg has not yet responded

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


Message 51 of 295 (568621)
07-07-2010 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Peg
07-07-2010 4:17 AM


Friedman vs Radday
quote:
purpledawn, that documentary hypothesis is extremly old...dating back to wellhausen in the late 1800's
this may be off topic but i just wanted to mention that in line with the topic, you cant really use the old wellhausen theory to try and prove your point becasue that theory has been shown to not be entirely accurate.
I've made it know that my arguments are based on the more current work of Richard Elliott Friedman.

In Friedman's essay "Some Recent Non-Arguments Against the Documentary Hypothesis" (1996), Friedman writes:

For more than a century, the documentary hypothesis has been the basic model for scholars who study the origins of the first books of the Bible. Periodically we hear that the hypothesis is in question, but this is not really true. It remains the dominant model in which we work. For most scholars, it is sufficiently established as to be assumed in their research, and generally those who challenge it are really refining rather than attacking it.

quote:
In the 80's a group of researchers at the Technion Institute in Haifa did a linguistic analysis of the book of Genesis by feeding its 20,000 words into a computer program which studies word usage and occurrence. The results were reported and the newer conclusion is that at least 82% of the pentacheut had only one author.

On page 95, Friedman addresses Radday's methods.

Radday then made changes of his own to this set of identifications. Genesis 14, the story of Abraham and the battle of the kings, is generally not regarded as part of any of the three main sourceworks of Genesis. Radday, however, simply decided to call it part of P. Why? In Radday's own words, "We put it, for the sake of convenience and for the lack of any better, into P. For no good reason at all, he was studying the language of an author while including an entire chapter that, according to the hypothesis being tested, was by someone else.

Worse, he excluded the creation story of Genesis 1--probably the most famous passage in P--from the study altogether because, according to Raday, his was a study of prose, and Genesis 1 is poetry. But Genesis 1 is prose. It is beautiful, patterned prose, but this fact does not make it legitimate to call it petry and exclude it from the analysis.

In all. I found errors in 29 of the 50 chapters of Genesis in Radday's source identification. Most of the errors were serious enough to throw off the results of the analysis. ...Radday and his colleagues had given whole chapters of J to E, and E to J, and then cam up with 82-percent coalescence of J's and E's "language behavior"! What else could we expect?

It is still a valid hypothesis. It has not been disproved, only refined.


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 50 by Peg, posted 07-07-2010 4:17 AM Peg has not yet responded

greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 52 of 295 (568643)
07-07-2010 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Theodoric
07-06-2010 12:36 PM


Re: Jared Diamond
Chap 8 of Guns, Germs and Steel refers to domesticatable plants. See the table 8.1 and and where he mentions how two of the founder crops were only found in SE Turkey (plus all the others that were more widespread)

Chap 9 discusses the domestic animals. See the table 9.3. All of the big five were found in or near SW Asia plus several of the minor nine.

This Med climate zone of the fertile crescent was the most blessed, and SE Turkey most of all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Theodoric, posted 07-06-2010 12:36 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 07-07-2010 1:20 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 1681 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 53 of 295 (568644)
07-07-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by purpledawn
07-06-2010 8:22 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
Nothing Specific?

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.

I just said that the Bible states that Garden was at the mountain Karacadag in SE Turkey, and that wheat was first domesticated there. Then I mentioned the German scientists who proved the Bible right. I might add that the Bible indicates that the event occurred right at the end of the super drought, the Younger Dryas, as Archaeologists also state.

We could go into other specifics, but let's deal with this one first.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2010 8:22 PM purpledawn has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 1:14 PM greentwiga has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Theodoric, posted 07-07-2010 1:23 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

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


Message 54 of 295 (568647)
07-07-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by greentwiga
07-07-2010 12:58 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
Nothing Specific?

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.

I just said that the Bible states that Garden was at the mountain Karacadag in SE Turkey, and that wheat was first domesticated there. Then I mentioned the German scientists who proved the Bible right. I might add that the Bible indicates that the event occurred right at the end of the super drought, the Younger Dryas, as Archaeologists also state.

We could go into other specifics, but let's deal with this one first.
Nothing Specific?

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.

I just said that the Bible states that Garden was at the mountain Karacadag in SE Turkey, and that wheat was first domesticated there. Then I mentioned the German scientists who proved the Bible right. I might add that the Bible indicates that the event occurred right at the end of the super drought, the Younger Dryas, as Archaeologists also state.

We could go into other specifics, but let's deal with this one first.

Yes, let's deal with this nonsense first.

The fact that a fable mentions something that might be fact tells us nothing about the honesty, factuality or reality of other parts of the fable.

Wheat may well have been first domesticated in Turkey but guess what, wheat is not mentioned in the Garden of Eden fable.

Second, there is nothing in Genesis 2 to suggest that it is placed around the Younger Dryas and evidence so far for the earliest domestication of wheat place it about 1000 years later than the Younger Dryas.

The common Fig (also not mentioned in the Genesis Garden of Eden fable) is common throughout the region from Southeast Asia to the Mediterranean.

Finally, the fact that real places are mentioned adds no credibility at all to the fantasy parts like talking serpents.

There is one other thing you should consider. At the locations you mention, Turkey and the Fertile Crescent, the Younger Dryas most likely would have had little or no noticeable effect. It is almost entirely something seen at higher latitudes and except for the likely drought in the area of the Fertile Crescent which might have lead to the first examples of irrigation and canals, irrelevant. Irrigation and canals though ARE an indication of a fairly large population as well as some form of hierarchy and governance, a direct refutation of the Garden of Eden story.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by greentwiga, posted 07-07-2010 12:58 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 07-07-2010 1:22 PM jar has not yet responded

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 55 of 295 (568648)
07-07-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by greentwiga
07-07-2010 12:50 PM


Re: Jared Diamond
Boy I really think that that is putting words in Diamond's mouth. He certainly does not make any judgments about blessed or not.
The book discusses how the eurasian landmass was more conducive to the the spread of domestication(and therfore rise of sophisticated cultures) than the Americas or Africa. But in no way does he make the subjective determination of "blessed".

That a large part of domestication of plants and animals happened in the "fertile crescent" in no way implies some sort of divine providence. You are reaching for evidence but have not found any.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by greentwiga, posted 07-07-2010 12:50 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 56 of 295 (568649)
07-07-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
07-07-2010 1:14 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
wrong poster sorry

Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 07-07-2010 1:14 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6551
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 57 of 295 (568650)
07-07-2010 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by greentwiga
07-07-2010 12:58 PM


Re: Redactor Makes a Tale
I just said that the Bible states that Garden was at the mountain Karacadag in SE Turkey, and that wheat was first domesticated there.

Can you cite where the bible says this?


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by greentwiga, posted 07-07-2010 12:58 PM greentwiga has not yet responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3056 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 58 of 295 (569582)
07-22-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by hepteract
06-25-2010 2:48 PM


Genesis 1 Creation
I view this explanation so a child can understand it. It was never meant for adult comprehension, we now have science for those details in the adult version of life's history.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by hepteract, posted 06-25-2010 2:48 PM hepteract has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3119
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 59 of 295 (569700)
07-23-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
07-05-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
Except, if you read it IN CONTEXT, in the original hebrew, the way that the term "YOM" is used (because it specifically says, it was day and it was night"< the term refers to a 24 hour period.

Perhaps, if you bothered to actually read Genesis in context, and look at the Jewish commentary, you would not make such elementary mistakes.

It might not agree with your predetermined theology, but context does mean a lot you know. Even as early as 175 BCE, there are big indications that the Jewish faith did not take it more than an allegory though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2010 10:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2010 11:13 PM ramoss has not yet responded

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


Message 60 of 295 (569834)
07-23-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by ramoss
07-23-2010 11:01 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
Hi ramoss,

ramos writes:

Except, if you read it IN CONTEXT, in the original hebrew, the way that the term "YOM" is used (because it specifically says, it was day and it was night"< the term refers to a 24 hour period.

I did read it in context in the original language.

I use Gods definition of yom which is found in Genesis 1:5 which says:

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

God called a light portion Day.

God called the end of that light portion which ended with evening and the dark portion that ended with the light portion of day two the first day.

Now I don't care what definition you use for yom I will use what God called the first day and then the following days which was controlled by the rotation of the earth in relation to the light source.

Now if you have a PHD in Biblical Hebrew and want to give me lessons that will complement my 6 years of lessons and my 45 years of studying it I am all ears.

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 59 by ramoss, posted 07-23-2010 11:01 AM ramoss has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by hERICtic, posted 07-24-2010 7:15 PM ICANT 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