Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 64 of 295 (570063)
07-25-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by ICANT
07-25-2010 8:36 AM


Evidence Needed
quote:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2010 8:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2010 6:42 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 65 of 295 (570067)
07-25-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by hERICtic
07-25-2010 10:08 AM


quote:
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!
I think that's the work of our cyberpunk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by hERICtic, posted 07-25-2010 10:08 AM hERICtic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by jar, posted 07-25-2010 11:21 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 67 by anglagard, posted 07-25-2010 10:40 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 84 of 295 (576360)
08-23-2010 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ICANT
08-23-2010 6:42 PM


Re: Evidence Needed
ICANT writes:
Message 62 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.
quote:
I can find no verse in the Bible that states God has resumed His creation work. Therefore He is still resting from His work.
You're assuming that he wishes to continue creating. The story has already made it clear the length of time a day takes. The story doesn't tell us that the 7th day is any longer. The story isn't about what God does after the 7th day, the story is about the first seven. There is no information in the story to support your contention that the seventh day has not ended yet.
quote:
These texts declare God is light.
Light represents what is good and true, while darkness represents what is evil and false. See John 3:19-21. The verse isn't speaking of the common meaning of the word light.
The verse in revelation is a vision. Notice it says the glory of God will lighten it, not God. Glory does not provide luminescence.
What you've shown is creative writing, not the common meaning of light.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ICANT, posted 08-23-2010 6:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2010 8:09 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 100 of 295 (576703)
08-25-2010 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
08-24-2010 8:09 PM


Light and Darkness Metaphors
Remember, this is the science forum.
quote:
No assumptions necessary.
John tells us God is going to create a new Heaven and Earth in the future. Revelations 21:1
That isn't evidence that God is still resting or that his seventh day is longer than ours. I don't consider floods, plagues, parting a sea, delivering manna, and carving out commandments etc. to be rest. It is a lot of work taking care of kids. Either God is on duty watching over us or he isn't.
quote:
I never said the seventh day has not ended yet.
I have said Gods seventh day of rest has not ended yet.
The stories don't tell us God's time is different than ours. Even the mentions in later writings of a day is like a thousand years doesn't tell us that God's time is different than ours. They are metaphors.
Even if you want to view those metaphors as fact, it ha been more than a thousand years since the creation story.
quote:
God does not reside insided the universe. He is not a creature of time and space. God has only had eternity He does not have days. He invented days for humans that is why He declared what a day was.
Evidence please. The stories don't tell us this. You're creating the information you need.
quote:
Crooks don't like the light as well as they do the darkness.
The good guys don't mind the light They have nothing to hide.
Exactly! That's why light is associated with right or what is true and darkness with wrong or what is false.
The verse isn't talking about luminescence. Luminescence already existed. The writer isn't saying that more luminescence has come into the world.
Criminals fear the truth, not the luminescence.
quote:
You did notice that the sun and moon was not necessary didn't you.
Revelation is a vision. A plain reading isn't necessarily what the verse is saying. The meaning of the vision has to be addressed.
quote:
Is the verse in 1 John a vision also?
Different writing. The use of light in 1 John is a metaphor, which I explained.
quote:
I didn't create anything. I just copied what was written.
I didn't say you created anything (although you do add considerably to the Genesis accounts). The verses you presented were examples of creative writing. (Visions, metaphors)
quote:
On the other hand you did some creative translation.
Study Bible and Christian commentaries. Not my own imagination. They aren't talking about luminescence. If you disagree, show evidence that the writers were talking about luminescence and that what they wrote has anything to do with the luminescence where God lives.
You haven't shown evidence to support your statements in Message 62. This is your creative writing.
ICANT writes:
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.
Ceasing from creation work doesn't tell us that God's day of rest hasn't ended. Not creating more doesn't tell us that God's day of rest hasn't ended. You're filling in the unknown. Show the evidence please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 08-24-2010 8:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2010 3:33 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 108 of 295 (576831)
08-25-2010 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ICANT
08-25-2010 3:33 PM


Re: Light and Darkness Metaphors
quote:
I hope that clarifies what I said of God's day of rest and what He is resting from having not ended yet.
Yes, you're writing fiction again (still). You're making a distinction that means nothing.
The story said he rested on the seventh day which is a specific period of time. The Sabbath supposedly mirrors this rest. The people went back to work on the next day. There's nothing in the story that says God did otherwise. It doesn't mean he had to start creating if no creating was needed.
The narrator said he rested, not that he continued to rest.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 08-25-2010 3:33 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2010 1:17 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 134 by Joseppi, posted 08-30-2010 8:29 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 119 of 295 (577085)
08-27-2010 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by ICANT
08-26-2010 1:17 PM


Re: Light and Darkness Metaphors
quote:
The Hebrew text says God ceased from His creating work.
Has He begun to create again since that time?
As I said, you're making a distinction that doesn't mean anything.
in Message 62 you said:
ICANT writes:
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.
He ceased creating and rested on the seventh day. It didn't say he rested for several days or that he was resting until he could start creating again.
God not starting another creation project doesn't mean "God's seventh day of rest from his first project has not ended yet."
His project of creating was done. He rested for a day. We don't know what he did on the 8th day. The story doesn't tell us that God's day is longer than ours.
You're adding to the story. You have no evidence from the story for your position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2010 1:17 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 08-27-2010 5:58 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 141 of 295 (577782)
08-30-2010 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Joseppi
08-30-2010 8:29 AM


Resting
quote:
Have you presented anything that says God started creating again afterwards?
This is in regard to CREATING not forming, nor generating, nor any other act that operates on created things.
See Message 119.
God not starting another creation project doesn't mean "God's day of rest" from his first project hasn't ended yet."
His project of creating was done. He rested for a day. We don't know what he did on the 8th day. The story doesn't tell us that God's day is longer than ours.
When I finish exercising ( ), I rest from exercising. When I'm done resting, I continue with my day. I am not still resting from exercising even though I don't exercise again that day. If three days pass until I exercise again, I have not been resting from exercise for three days.
Just as ICANT did, you making a distinction that isn't in the story and doesn't follow normal language usage. You're adding to the story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Joseppi, posted 08-30-2010 8:29 AM Joseppi has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 147 of 295 (578969)
09-03-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by III
09-02-2010 11:57 PM


Re: Interpreting
Hey Dr. Whiskey,
Welcome to EvC. The members of EvC understand all the issues you raised, but this is a debate board. So members choose one side of an issue and debate it.
When one joins a discussion, one picks the side they wish to debate.
Again welcome and fruitful debating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by III, posted 09-02-2010 11:57 PM III has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by III, posted 09-03-2010 8:08 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 240 of 295 (581719)
09-17-2010 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by greyseal
09-16-2010 2:48 PM


Inerrancy
It doesn't matter whether one feels the stories are contradictory or not, the issue at hand is whether the differences that the originator mentioned disproves that the Bible is inerrant which is a doctrinal position. (Doctrine of Inerrancy)
He also feels that any reference to these unreliable writings with errors also makes those writings unreliable.
My position is that the stories weren't created to go together. Each author had a different point to make to his audience. The redactor that "stitched" them together also had his own purpose for doing so. These stories are foundational myths that weren't written as factual accounts. They need to be understood as they were written. If we change the purpose, then it is our own fault if they don't hold up to the new standard set.
I also don't feel that any reference to these stories makes the author's work unreliable. Again, we have to understand the point the writer is making by referencing the stories. As I said in Message 3:
A non fiction book quoting a fictional book or character does not automatically make the non fictional book unreliable. It depends on what is being presented and the reason for the quote or reference.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by greyseal, posted 09-16-2010 2:48 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2010 3:50 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 242 of 295 (581829)
09-17-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by greyseal
09-17-2010 3:50 PM


Re: Inerrancy
quote:
So you're arguing that the two stories aren't supposed to be taken as factual accounts (I definitely agree they are not) and because of that, their apparent contradictions do not render the bible as non-inerrant.
Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that the Bible is considered accurate and totally free of error.
Yes, my position is that they are foundational myths and aren't to be looked to for factual accounts.
quote:
Ordinarily I would have to say it wouldn't matter that there are two fictional stories in an otherwise non-fictional book, but the ultimate author of this book is supposed to be beyond reproach. He is supposed to have inspired directly these sets of books and imbued them with his own perfection.
The Bible is a religious book that contains various works and various styles.
quote:
Ordinarily I would have to say it wouldn't matter that there are two fictional stories in an otherwise non-fictional book, but the ultimate author of this book is supposed to be beyond reproach. He is supposed to have inspired directly these sets of books and imbued them with his own perfection.
Inspiration is not dictation. All writers are inspired by something.
quote:
Now you're saying that normal, fallible human beings have not only touched but directly and wilfully changed the text that was supposed to be in the bible for their own ends.
I don't know whether you are a believer or not, but if your position is common, then I think it proves the bible inerrant from almost page 1.
There have been unintentional errors in the various Bibles over the centuries such as "typos", placement of sentences, accidental addition of notes, etc. That's why most who support the inerrancy doctrine are talking about the absolute original documents that don't exist anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by greyseal, posted 09-17-2010 3:50 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by barbara, posted 09-17-2010 8:40 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 244 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2010 2:46 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 245 of 295 (581933)
09-18-2010 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by greyseal
09-18-2010 2:46 AM


Re: Inerrancy
quote:
That sounds like trying to have your cake and eat it. If the copies we have aren't inerrant then they aren't.
I don't hold the position that the Bible is inerrant. My position with this thread is that the differences in the OP are not proof against the inerrancy doctrine. There are plenty of real errors for that.
Textual critics have found thousands of textual differences between the manuscripts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2010 2:46 AM greyseal has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 246 of 295 (581945)
09-18-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by barbara
09-17-2010 8:40 PM


Re: Inerrancy
quote:
Genesis 1 is a story written for a young child to understand. Science's version is for the adult to understand. Both versions come from the limitations of our brain and its sensory abilities that is unique to us. However, this does not make us the best experts or the best qualified to tell the story accurately or truthfully. Since there is no other life form to dispute our conclusions of how life really formed, we have only ourselves to conflict it's theories.
I would say that Genesis 2 is geared more towards children and Genesis 1 was written to support the Sabbath Rule.
I would say the doctrine of inerrancy is in error. It has only been around a few centuries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by barbara, posted 09-17-2010 8:40 PM barbara has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 260 of 295 (582247)
09-20-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by ringo
09-20-2010 1:11 AM


Redactor
quote:
That isn't the question at all. The question is: What are the implications of two different stories being presented side by side? Clearly, the writers/compilers of Genesis were not uncomfortable with including both stories. The question is: Why not?
Some thoughts from Friedman's book suggest that it was an issue of keeping everyone "happy".
Separately, the books and stories were known and supported by various groups and associated with history. J&E were quoted in D. P had been around since Hezekiah's day and had been associated with national reform. D had been read publicly in Josiah's day and by the time of the Redactor the tradition that Moses had written all the stories in the first five books had taken hold. It would have been difficult for the Redactor to put the stories side by side like the Gospels since tradition said they came from the same author.
The Redactor was supposedly about Ezra's time if not Ezra himself, so there was a lot of rebuilding to do for the Jews. The familiar is always comforting in times of chaos.
The Redactor was bringing a crushed kingdom back together. Since the majority of people were illiterate, hearing a familiar story even though it is slightly different wouldn't cause problems. As you know in storytelling the story doesn't stay exactly the same

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by ringo, posted 09-20-2010 1:11 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-20-2010 6:16 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 276 of 295 (582407)
09-21-2010 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN
09-21-2010 3:24 AM


Re: Some more evidence
We don't debate web pages. That is why we make our point in our own words with quotes that support our position and link to the larger article.
Two Creation Accounts?
Genesis Contradictions?
Now you've provided evidence, but no argument. Try putting the two in the same post.
So what makes these gentlemen more credible than other Biblical scholars other than they agree with you?
Who is JPH?
Don Batten is an agronomist.
Richard Elliott Friedman is a biblical scholar. Even Christian scholars are going to disagree on various issues. Disagreement with your position doesn't make them an atheist.
The articles you pasted cover many issues that have already been done to death and will only waste posts. Basically your position seems to be that there are no contradictions between G1 and G2. You also seem to disagree that they are separate stories or that they are foundational myths.
Contrary to your claims, there are Christian Bible Scholars who have no problem with G1 and G2 as foundational myths or that they aren't actual events.
De Principiis (Book IV) by Origen, one of the early church fathers.
16. ... Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. ...
The magic trees and talking snake pretty much tell us that G2 is not an actual event.
The stories were written for different purposes and weren't meant to be conflated as one story. Even the Redactor didn't try to intertwine them. He just wrote a connecting sentence.
I don't feel the stories show an error on the part of the writers.
I feel that looking to these stories for scientific facts makes the searcher in error, not the writings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN, posted 09-21-2010 3:24 AM NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Theodoric, posted 09-21-2010 9:44 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024