Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
30 online now:
Captcass, jar, PaulK, RAZD, ringo (5 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,613 Year: 16,649/19,786 Month: 774/2,598 Week: 20/251 Day: 20/23 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 1 of 295 (566612)
06-25-2010 2:48 PM


I noticed that the only active thread on this topic in the Accuracy and Inerrancy section has been discontinued. I think that this is an important topic to be discussed.

My point of view is that if the creation story is not reliable, any book of the bible quoting creation or stating scriptural infallibility is unreliable, any book quoting those books is unreliable, and so on.

Here is the argument: Genesis 1 states that the order of creation went Animals, Plants, Man & Woman.

"And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Genesis 1:20-27, NIV

Genesis 2, however, states the order was Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.

"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Genesis 2:4-8, NIV

"Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman', for she was taken out of man."

Genesis 2:19-23, NIV

Once again, the orders are as such: Genesis 1: Animals, Plants, Man & Woman. Genesis 2: Man, Plants, Animals, Woman.

This contradiction seems to debunk the inerrancy of the bible. This thread is to provide a place for debate as to whether or not it actually does.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 06-25-2010 6:34 PM hepteract has responded
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 07-05-2010 1:20 AM hepteract has responded
 Message 58 by barbara, posted 07-22-2010 11:09 AM hepteract has not yet responded
 Message 145 by graft2vine, posted 09-02-2010 4:57 PM hepteract has not yet responded
 Message 146 by III, posted 09-02-2010 11:57 PM hepteract has not yet responded
 Message 238 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2010 12:24 PM hepteract has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 5 of 295 (566680)
06-25-2010 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by purpledawn
06-25-2010 6:34 PM


Re: Infallible or Inerrant
quote:
Inerrancy and infallibility are not interchangeable.
I was not aware until you mentioned it that a separate meaning had developed for the word 'infallible' when referring to the bible. In common usage 'infallible' and 'inerrant' are synonyms, but for the sake of consistency, I should probably have used 'inerrant', as it is the term that applies.
quote:
Not reliable for what? Just because one tries to consult a cookbook to fix their car, does not make the cookbook unreliable for cooking. The person is in error for using the wrong book for the job, not the book.
Reliable as a source of fact. Now you're just picking apart my phraseology, but that's fine. I will be more careful about specificity in the future.
quote:
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.
Now while some scripture probably does assert the infallibility of scripture, I have now made clear that what I meant was inerrancy. Many parts of the New Testament in particular state inerrancy:

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"

2 Timothy 3:16, NIV

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Matthew 5:18, NIV

"Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth."

John 17:17, NIV

As well as many books that quote the creation story as factual support:

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 10:5-9, NIV

In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.

Psalm 102:25, NIV

quote:
What are you comparing the accuracy against?
Since the creation stories are fiction and written at different times, why do you feel they should agree with each other?
I do not feel that they should agree with each other, I feel that much of the bible can be transitively proven false if it can be proven that the two stories are in contradiction with no possible way for both to be true. I am looking for any logical argument for both to be true. I don't expect it, but I feel that A) Christians deserve a chance to try, and B) Everyone has the right to know.

I am referring to historical accuracy. It may surprise you to learn this, but some people (2 billion) still believe this actually happened and is not, in fact, fiction. Therefore I am trying to demonstrate its falsehood.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by purpledawn, posted 06-25-2010 6:34 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 06-25-2010 9:10 PM hepteract has responded
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2010 8:24 AM hepteract has responded
 Message 22 by jar, posted 07-03-2010 1:58 PM hepteract has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 6 of 295 (566682)
06-25-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Peg
06-25-2010 7:55 PM


Still Inconsistent
quote:
Gen 2 focuses only on the mans creation and the garden he was put into. It is not to be read as a 'creation account' but rather as the beginning of mans life and how he came to be removed from the garden.
While I agree that the main purpose was not as a chronological account, that still doesn't change the fact that it describes man as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up", a clear discrepancy with chapter one.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Peg, posted 06-25-2010 7:55 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 06-29-2010 7:43 PM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 8 of 295 (566693)
06-25-2010 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ICANT
06-25-2010 9:10 PM


Re: Infallible or Inerrant
I will not do that, because your thread explicitly states that the bible is the final authority. My thread explicitly states that the bible is being questioned. Therefore, the threads should remain separate. Also, my thread has a specific focal point of debate, where yours is more of a discussion around a general topic. I don't mean to sound mean, but that's how it is. You're welcome to join us here though.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ICANT, posted 06-25-2010 9:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 10 of 295 (566760)
06-26-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by purpledawn
06-26-2010 8:24 AM


Re: Free of Error
I grant you that my references to the Bible claiming its own inerrancy are incorrectly cited. However, I still maintain that the quote of creation is meant as factual reference by the speaker:

"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Mark 10:5-9, NIV

quote:
Jesus was speaking against divorce. The A&E story is a foundational myth in Judaism. He isn't saying the story is an actual event, but the concept the story presents serves his purpose.
He clearly believes that God had done this. He says "...what God has joined together, let man not separate." If I was quoting Greek mythology to assert that women were inferior to men, I would not say, 'Pandora opened the box, so men are better people', I would say 'Pandora's opening of the box represents the evil nature of women'. The sooner implies an actual event, the latter draws from the concept of the myth.

quote:
I know many people feel the creation stories are actual events; but even if the story was consistent, it still wouldn't be an actual event.

The stories not agreeing is not an error because they weren't written to agree. The stories were written centuries apart and intentionally combined centuries later.


I completely agree. But you need more evidence. You keep questioning my intentions, and your arguments are good and have made me rethink what I intend to get out of this debate. I thank you for that, but would like to point out that you haven't actually provided any evidence aside from the documentary hypothesis to support the idea that the stories are fiction. I'm familiar with the documentary hypothesis, but did not cite it as different authorship does not necessarily mean falsehood. I intend to actually prove falsehood.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by purpledawn, posted 06-26-2010 8:24 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2010 9:49 AM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 24 of 295 (568149)
07-04-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Peg
06-29-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
This is true, but it doesn't address what I said: Man is described as being created "before any plant of the field had yet sprung up". Any inconsistency proves falsehood of at least one of the stories, which proves that the Bible is not inerrant.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Peg, posted 06-29-2010 7:43 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM hepteract has responded
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 10:04 PM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 25 of 295 (568151)
07-04-2010 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by purpledawn
06-27-2010 9:49 AM


Re: Factual Reference
You clearly aren't understanding the grammatical aspect of this. Jesus is saying that because god created man and woman for each other, sanctity of marriage should be kept. He's not using the story as an example, he's clearly stating that the event of woman being created for man by god is the REASON. As I said before, I wouldn't say that women are evil BECAUSE Pandora opened the box, I would specify that it is representative of woman's evil. Jesus is clearly stating that it is BECAUSE god created woman for man, a reference he clearly believes is factual, that the sanctity of marriage should be kept. Understand?

Edited by hepteract, : No reason given.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by purpledawn, posted 06-27-2010 9:49 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 1:08 PM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 29 of 295 (568255)
07-05-2010 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Peg
07-04-2010 10:04 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
Even if its purpose is not as a chronological account, for it to be inerrant it still needs to keep consistent. The statement that plants did not exist when man was created is a clear and stark contradiction with what was said in chapter one. Even if the passage as a whole serves a different purpose, that particular sentence is stating a chronological order that is inconsistent with the order described just verses before.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Peg, posted 07-04-2010 10:04 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 8:39 PM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 30 of 295 (568257)
07-05-2010 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
07-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
That theory is obviously flawed, since the fact remains that genesis 1 describes plants being created before man and genesis 2 describes a man who was created before any plants.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 07-04-2010 9:56 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2010 10:41 AM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 34 of 295 (568433)
07-05-2010 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by purpledawn
07-05-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Factual Reference
I'm not disputing Jesus' purposes. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the statements he made show clear belief in the genesis account of creation:

Main Entry: there·fore
Pronunciation: \ˈther-ˌfȯr\
Function: adverb
Date: 14th century
1 a : for that reason : consequently b : because of that c : on that ground
2 : to that end

Main Entry: be·cause
Pronunciation: \bi-ˈkȯz, -ˈkəz, -ˈkȯs, bē-\
Function: conjunction
Etymology: Middle English because that, because, from by cause that
Date: 14th century
1 : for the reason that : since
2 : the fact that : that

Main Entry: 1rea·son
Pronunciation: \ˈrē-zən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
Date: 13th century
1 a : a statement offered in explanation or justification b : a rational ground or motive c : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact d : the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause

^From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary.

Jesus, having used the word therefore, was clearly saying that god's creation of woman for man was the underlying reason that the two should not separate. You clearly have a poor understanding of language. To drive the point through, i'll even get the greek definitions:

eneken toutou: on account of this

^from scripture4all.org

A fictional example is never the underlying cause, and since Jesus was so worded in law and argument he would not have committed this fallacy.

As for my failure to respond to message 11, I apologize for not having the free time to research and type for hours at a time. In any case, I wasn't arguing Jesus' motives in the first place, so I see no need to.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 1:08 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 9:38 PM hepteract has responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 35 of 295 (568434)
07-05-2010 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
07-05-2010 10:41 AM


Re: Still Inconsistent
I didn't want to bring this up, but the 'creation took place over billions of years' theory doesn't hold since plants can't go without the sun for a day, as would have needed to occur. That's off-topic though. As for my reading comprehension, it's your writing ability (or lack thereof) which made me misunderstand your point. You seemed to assume I already realized you believed that genesis 1 took place after genesis 2. State your thesis before you support it. Or at all. Either's better than trying to make me figure it out like a puzzle.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 07-05-2010 10:41 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 36 of 295 (568436)
07-05-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by kbertsche
07-05-2010 1:20 AM


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.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 07-05-2010 1:20 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by kbertsche, posted 07-06-2010 7:45 PM hepteract has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 37 of 295 (568439)
07-05-2010 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
07-05-2010 8:39 PM


Re: Still Inconsistent
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').


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 07-05-2010 8:39 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Peg, posted 07-07-2010 3:20 AM hepteract has not yet responded

  
hepteract
Junior Member (Idle past 3268 days)
Posts: 14
From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA
Joined: 06-24-2010


Message 40 of 295 (568455)
07-05-2010 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by purpledawn
07-05-2010 9:38 PM


Re: Factual Reference
I disagree. The definitions of the Greek words Jesus used tell us what he meant, and the definitions I provided show that he was describing the events as a factual basis for a legal/philosophical precedent.


"And now, they're thinking about banning toy guns - and they're gonna keep the fucking real ones!"

-- George Carlin


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by purpledawn, posted 07-05-2010 9:38 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by purpledawn, posted 07-06-2010 9:06 AM hepteract has not yet responded
 Message 44 by jar, posted 07-06-2010 9:20 AM hepteract has not yet 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