|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5040 days) Posts: 14 From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So let's look and see what Genesis 1 actually says.
quote: The first day. The Heaven and the earth get created. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm sorry but there is NOTHING in the story to support that and in addition, guess what, Early Hebrew did not have cases, or even punctuation.
Edited by jar, : applin spallin and fix subtitle Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Huh?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You said:
Joseppi writes: Heaven is not capitalized until the eighth verse.The heaven and the earth were created in the beginning recorded in the first verse. The heaven in that first verse is singular and there was no division into the other two heavens at that time. Heaven in capitalized in verse eighth to inform the believer that God's intention was to eventually put his throne on earth and dwell there. First, Hebrew did not have either case (upper and lower case) or punctuation so there was no distinction based on capitalization. Second, there is NOTHING in Genesis 1 related to "God's intention was to eventually put his throne on earth and dwell there." That is just stuff you are making up. Here is Genesis 1:
quote: There is nothing in there to support your assertion. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Huh?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I don't believe the Hebrews had no way to express titles, names etc. Your idea that if Hebrews didn't capitalize letters then no translated text should have them is ludicrous. I never said that translated texts should not use capitals, I said that the Hebrews did not use case sensitive letters or punctuation.
You would have a better argument than, assuming I made something up, if you explained why it is indeed capitalized. And further, why you assume it means nothing. I didn't expect you to grasp the understanding since you may not be well read with respect to the Bible. And, you seem to have great difficulty with a plethora of simple English usage. Anyway, the Hebrew this or that argument carries no weight with me, because I think it is certain that you have no understanding of Hebrew comparable to any of the translators of the Bible I read. Please look and you will see that I included the full text of Genesis 1. There is NOTHING in Genesis 1 related to "God's intention was to eventually put his throne on earth and dwell there." That is just stuff you are making up.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Good grief. We are talking about Genesis 1 & 2.
I repeat, there is NOTHING in Genesis 1 related to your assertion that "God's intention was to eventually put his throne on earth and dwell there. " Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But none of that is in Genesis 1.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And you are making up the notion that I'm making things up. Yes, you have said that, but I must once again ask you to show where in Genesis 1 there is anything related to "God's intention was to eventually put his throne on earth and dwell there." If it is not in Genesis 1 then you are just making stuff up. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, what you are saying is irrelevant to the question.
Where in Genesis 1 there is anything related to "God's intention was to eventually put his throne on earth and dwell there." Hell, where is a throne even mentioned in Genesis 1? There is not even anything in Genesis 1 about God ruling. If they are NOT in the text, then you are just making stuff up. It really is that simple. One of the interesting things about the God found in Genesis 1 is that there is NO interaction with what is created. The God found in Genesis 1 is aloof, competent, overarching, creating by an act of will alone but separate, not personal, not interacting with its creation. This is yet another difference between the fable found in Genesis 1 and the fable found in Genesis 2&3. The God found in the Genesis 2&3 fable is entirely different than the one depicted in Genesis 1. The Genesis 2&3 God is very human, personal, fumbling, often unsure, lying and even fearful but hands on, a tinkerer, learning by doing and actively involved with its creation. Those differences should be a clue that the purpose of the two fables is NOT creation itself but rather trying to describe how different people at different times viewed their relationships with the world around them, each other and the god they worshiped. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That's fine except I was not talking about anything that is NOT in the text. If you return just ask and I will be happy to explain exactly where in the text each thing I mention can be found.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of note of course, my blowing of this pathetic Original Post out of the water has been completely ignored. I must have missed your post where you did that. Can you provide us a link? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, I read both of those and could not find where you addressed the issues raised, just that you denied that the inconsistencies really existed.
However, even if you assumptions were true (and I see no reason to think they are) it still does not address the fact that both the order as presented in the Genesis 1 fable and in the Genesis 2 fable are factually wrong. The Earth is not created before the sun. The first plants were not seed bearing. Life on land did NOT come before life in the sea. The fact is that neither the newer fable found in Genesis 1 nor the older fables combined into Genesis 2&3 are factually correct. They are not even theologically consistent, the God's are different, the one described in Genesis 2&3 is very human, hands on, learning by doing, unsure, fearful, creating by hand and magic, but personal, directly involved in its creation. The god described in Genesis 1 though is aloof, separate, creating by act of will alone, sure and unhesitating but impersonal and not interacting with its creations. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I can only repeat the parts you did not address.
However, even if you assumptions were true (and I see no reason to think they are) it still does not address the fact that both the order as presented in the Genesis 1 fable and in the Genesis 2 fable are factually wrong. The Earth is not created before the sun. The first plants were not seed bearing. Life on land did NOT come before life in the sea. The fact is that neither the newer fable found in Genesis 1 nor the older fables combined into Genesis 2&3 are factually correct. They are not even theologically consistent, the God's are different, the one described in Genesis 2&3 is very human, hands on, learning by doing, unsure, fearful, creating by hand and magic, but personal, directly involved in its creation. The god described in Genesis 1 though is aloof, separate, creating by act of will alone, sure and unhesitating but impersonal and not interacting with its creations. Factually incorrect stories. Different gods. Different methods. Different order. This is in a Science forum dealing with Biblical accuracy.
Edited by jar, : Hit key too soon. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
What evidences is in the bible precisely? Please clarify what you mean by that if you don't mind. I'm not tracking where your coming from. And I'm not sure what you are asking. The message you replied to was in response to a claim that something in Genesis 1 implied a couple heavens with one meant to be where God was going to put his throne and live. I was simply asking where that could be found in Genesis 1. What evidence is in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 is a snap shot of how different people in different cultures and eras viewed their world. It is the story of authors and cultures and editors and redactors and committees of Canon. The big question for me, and a major step in understanding the Bible, came from questioning what many different committees of Canon decided to include two stories that touch, even indirectly, on creation even though they are filled with conflicting and mutually exclusive tales. Understanding developed over many years, decades even. Why did they include two stories? Why did they place the younger, newer tale before the older tale? Why didn't they merge the tales together like they did with the at least two, more likely three, Flood myths? Why didn't they edit the material to eliminate the conflicts, the discrepancies, fix up the mistakes? Why did the redactors who were certainly capable of reading include not only two different, mutually exclusive stories, but went a step further and placed the younger story first is a good one? Why did they include two stories of Creation that exclude each other, if one is true the other is false? That should be one of the first clues for readers. They include both stories because creation is not really what the stories are about. Creation is simply a plot device, a tool to use to talk about what was really important to the story tellers. They put the younger story first because it served as a introduction, a wide angle view from afar, that shows a Transcendent God that oversees everything. That beginning, that opening shot, let the authors talk about what was really important, that GOD is the source of all, and that we should take one day off out of seven. But that God was also impersonal, separate, not interacting with its creation. They then combined several of the older tales from a time when folk saw God as just a super human. Again, creation is but a plot device to allow them to present a different view of god, a kindler gentler god, one with many human limitations and weaknesses, one that is somewhat fumbling and unsure, fearful and limited, but also intimate, solid, chatty, companionable. The plot devices in the rest of the story allowed the authors to get to other material that they thought important, why man had to work as a farmer instead of simply foraging like other animals, why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems harder and more painful for humans. It is a "Just So" story that helped explain man's relationship with man, that women were subject to man, that we were a social morality based society as opposed to an amoral society like the other animals. And that seems to be the point of this thread. Why did the redactors include two obviously mutually exclusive and contradictory creation myths? I believe they had good reason, the stories let them discuss the other subjects that they felt important. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024