|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5042 days) Posts: 14 From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
hERICtic Member (Idle past 4544 days) Posts: 371 Joined: |
ICANT,
Can you please show me one verse which had "yom" plus a number that equals more than a 24 hour day? Can you give me an example where evening and morning are used together that do not show a 24 hour day? Can you show me an example where morning and night are used together that does not show a 24 hour day? If the original Hebrew does not mean literal 24 hour days, why has it been only "recently" that it means long "days"? Do you agree or disagree if I was describing a 24 hour day, by stating it consists of a morning and an evening, would be accurate? Thanks. Edited by hERICtic, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi hERICtic,
hERICtic writes: Are jar and I the same person to you? Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Unless you include the light portion in which the Heaven and the Earth was created in Genesis 1:1 you have an evening which ended with the following light period some 12 hours later. If you include the light period that came before the evening of Genesis 1:2 and the dark period that ended with the morning light period of day two which God declared the first day. Then you have a day that consisted of a light period and a dark period just like the light period and the dark period of a day today. This was God's definition of Day not mine. God declares a light portion as day. God declares the end of a light period followed by a dark period which ends with the beginning of the next day as the first day. He then repeats this discription through day six. On day seven God ceases His creation work and is still ceased from His creation work so for God that day has not ended yet. Our system of keeping time has no effect on God as there has always been light where He is. Just on great big eternal light period with a little space marked off with time in it for us humans. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hERICtic Member (Idle past 4544 days) Posts: 371 Joined: |
hERICtic writes:
Are jar and I the same person to you? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm on meds for a sinus infection, but I'm sure I didnt write the above!
ICANT writes: Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Unless you include the light portion in which the Heaven and the Earth was created in Genesis 1:1 you have an evening which ended with the following light period some 12 hours later. I'm sorry, I'm just not following you. Every day has a morning and evening. Every day has a light period and a dark one. Its a perfect description of a typical day. I asked all those questions which you didnt respond to, but every time an evening and morning are used in scripture, it refers to a 24 hour day. Every time "yom" is used with a number, it also refers to a 24 hour day. To suggest the author is not refering to a 24 hour day is twisting and/or ignoring what Genesis states.
ICANT writes: If you include the light period that came before the evening of Genesis 1:2 and the dark period that ended with the morning light period of day two which God declared the first day. Then you have a day that consisted of a light period and a dark period just like the light period and the dark period of a day today. This was God's definition of Day not mine. God declares a light portion as day. God declares the end of a light period followed by a dark period which ends with the beginning of the next day as the first day. He then repeats this discription through day six. I'm sorry, I really am having a hard time following you. Ramoss stated it was a 24 hour day, you seemed to disagree. Yet I cannot seem to "read" where you are disagreeing at all. What exactly is your stance? Is it a 6-24 hour day creation or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:This is the accuracy and inerrancy thread. Please show evidence to support your statements. Show evidence that the 7th day hasn't ended for God.Show evidence that there has always been light where God "is." Edited by purpledawn, : Changed subtitle Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given. Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I think that's the work of our cyberpunk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, just ICANT. He has attribution issues.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
purpledawn writes: I think that's the work of our cyberpunk. Please. I just turned 53, and if referring to music, prefer the term cyberprogressive. For the record, ICANT misattributed me, then I miattributed I(something or other) to ICANT and now ICANT is doubling down. What a mess, think it's time for another break. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4971 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
Where in Genesis chapter two is there any chronological order presented, other than, what is demanded by the context of the chapter's narration?
The chapter begins by closing the discussion of chapter one and opening a new topic. The new topic is GENERATIONS of....Which has nothing to do with chronological order as any requirement. In chapter two there exists no terms implying chronology.The word "AND" doesn't mean "AND THEN". As some have said, the Bible isn't aimed at teaching science.Instead the aim is teaching eternal truths. However, there is nothing in the text to warrant any of the assumptions thus far displayed in this thread. I list some of the assumptions that I noted.a). That the narrator of Genesis two is not the same as the narrator of Genesis one. b). That the chonology of chapter one extends throughout chapter two. c). That the narrator is not God. Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
You have it backwards. If you want to claim an order other than what the narration suggests, you need a better reason than forcing it to coincide with chapter one.
Where in Genesis chapter two is there any chronological order presented, other than, what is demanded by the context of the chapter's narration?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I list some of the assumptions that I noted. a). That the narrator of Genesis two is not the same as the narrator of Genesis one. b). That the chonology of chapter one extends throughout chapter two. c). That the narrator is not God. Those are not assumptions, the first and third are conclusions based on the evidence. The second is simply silly since there is no connection between the two separate myths. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4971 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
Ringo, You've got me backwards. I asked a question you didn't answer.
I claim no order whatsoever. Chapter one's chronology is day by day until seven. Chapter two has no chronology except what is forced by context. My point being that the ASSUMPTION of a chronology in chapter two is merely assumed. You said, "other than what the narration suggests". By this means you have presented the ASSUMPTION I was referring to. You can show no cause for your suggestion of chronology other than bias beforehand. Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4971 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
Jar,
Saying you didn't assume is what is silly. For example, you apparently have assumed that the narrator is not God, correct? But, the first verse of Genesis says...In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Therefore, only God can be the narrator. For the same reason, your unpresented and unpresentable evidence can't refute the simple understanding that the narrator is God. Since, only God could have been rationally thought to haev been a witness of any of these events in both chapters. What is clear to me however, is that your bias is your only actual evidence rather than anything rationally rationally determined from the actual text. Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
Exactly. That is the correct default assumption, that the chronology presented in the text is the intended chronology. If you want to reject that assumption, you need a compelling reason.
You said, "other than what the narration suggests". By this means you have presented the ASSUMPTION I was referring to. Joseppi writes:
On the contrary, the ones showing bias are the ones who want to shoehorn the chronology in with that of chapter one. I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that chapter two was not intended to be chronological if you can provide a compelling reason. You can show no cause for your suggestion of chronology other than bias beforehand. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4971 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
Ringo,
If you have no answer then admit it. why act like your assumptions are the rule? YOU CAN NOT ESTABLISH ANY CHRONOLOGY THROUGHOUT CHAPTER TWO. So, feel free to say...O yes I can but I don't have to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joseppi Member (Idle past 4971 days) Posts: 50 From: New Albany, In, USA Joined: |
Ringo,
I didn't shoehorn anything. Assumption is apparently your natural characteristic. My compelling reason is the absence of anything denoting chronology in chapter two. (However, there is one example of contextual based chronology) Edited by Joseppi, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024