|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5036 days) Posts: 14 From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 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 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I think that's the work of our cyberpunk.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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: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: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Remember, this is the science forum.
quote: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: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:Evidence please. The stories don't tell us this. You're creating the information you need. quote: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: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:Different writing. The use of light in 1 John is a metaphor, which I explained. quote: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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:The Bible is a religious book that contains various works and various styles. quote:Inspiration is not dictation. All writers are inspired by something. quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3478 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024