Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 149 (148988)
10-11-2004 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Rrhain
10-11-2004 1:08 AM


Double-talk generators at maximum, Captain.
"She canna take the strain, Cap'ain!"
"My God man, you're talking about human lives!"
"Scotty, Bones, please. I'm trying to seduce this green woman."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 1:08 AM Rrhain has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 107 of 149 (148994)
10-11-2004 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by BobAliceEve
10-10-2004 7:55 PM


Re: No contradiction
Would you agree that the first five verses of chapter two refer to the verses in chapter one?
no. you'd have to see a previous post i think i made in this thread. when i refer to "chapter one" i mean genesis 1:1-2:4 (halfway through the verse). by "chapter two" i mean genesis 2:4-2:24, although the story actually continues on until the end of the chapter four.
the dividing point is here:
quote:
Genesis 2:4:
Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created.
***
When the LORD God made the earth and heaven --
would you agree that verse five says "...every plant of the field before it was in the earth..."
i think i posted my translation above somewhere. i'll refrain from doign it again, but the message is a little more clear than king james english. it says that when god made man, there were no plants of the field.
We agree that they were created in chapter one so they must have been "created" somewhere else since they were not yet created "in the earth"? And, logically, if there were no plants then there were probably no animals yet in the earth? So they also were created somewhere else before they were created "in the earth"?
no, i would not agree at all. to be fair, there is a far better way of reconciling the two texts. genesis 2 says "of the field" and is probably concerned with agriculture ("no man to till the soil"). genesis 1 is concerned with everything.
however, this is still a naive way of reading the bible. the two stories are clearly in opposition, stylistically, chronologically, and theologically.
Knowing God as a powerful being, I would argue that it is reasonable that God's design process would be like an engineer's making a mock-up but it would be different in that God simply created the real thing somewhere else then recreated it "in the earth".
so there's a mock-up earth somewhere?
listen, you're reading it wrong. "earth" does not mean the planet earth. this is a bad english reading of it. a better translation would be "land" since it is only concerned with the land and not the water.
and besides, genesis 1 talks about the earth sprouting the vegetation, so you're still wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by BobAliceEve, posted 10-10-2004 7:55 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 149 (148997)
10-11-2004 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
10-10-2004 1:12 PM


actually, i know several people on this board that might make that claim.>>
Unless you count God as an individual, I've never heard anyone claim this.
no, the two running examples we've used, homer and shakespeare, are questioned ALL the time. and shakespeare's hardly ancient.>>
There's minor speculation, but never the HELLBENT attempt to disprove traditional authorship.
no, flood myths are NOT clearly all based on the same story. some are very different. but yes. all in involve a flood.>>
You said earlier that most flood myths involve a man told by the dvine to build an ark, take life aboard with him and repopulate the Earth. That's clearly based on the same story.
wow. every culture has a creation myth too, where a god or gods creates almost everything.>>
Which I claim as a real event too, so you only hurt your own argument by bringing this up.
i didn't say it was allegorical. i said it was making fun of a real babylonian ziggurat.>>
If the story's comedic, it's clearly not intended to be taken literally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 10-10-2004 1:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by AdminAsgara, posted 10-11-2004 3:14 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2004 3:18 AM JasonChin has replied
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 3:48 AM JasonChin has replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 109 of 149 (148999)
10-11-2004 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:11 AM


Jason, please read Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
Using the quote features makes posts easier to read and follow.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:11 AM JasonChin has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1545 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 110 of 149 (149000)
10-11-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:11 AM


Minor?
There's minor speculation, but never the HELLBENT attempt to disprove traditional authorship.
Of Shakespeare? Where have you been? Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 4 individual movements to challenge the traditional (or "Stratfordian") authorship of Shakespeare's plays: the Oxfordians, the Marlow-ians, the Baconites, and the Derbians. But there have been others.
And "hellbent" certainly describes the outlook of the Oxfordians, at least, who fight tooth and nail to defend Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as the "true" author of the plays attributed to Shakespeare (even though he died before two-thirds of them were believed to have been written.)
You may believe this speculation to be "minor", just as your average person believes creationism to be a minor biological quibble. Nonetheless, these movements represent significant scholarly discourse.
I cleave to the Stratfordian view, as do most scholars. I don't know anything about the Homeric controversy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:11 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:27 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 125 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 5:00 AM crashfrog has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 149 (149005)
10-11-2004 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
10-11-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Minor?
Shakespeare's work was artistic, not ancient and venerated like Homer, Aristotle and the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2004 3:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:32 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 116 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 3:57 AM JasonChin has replied
 Message 131 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 5:16 AM JasonChin has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 149 (149007)
10-11-2004 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:27 AM


Re: Minor?
not if both versions were thought to be sacred. who is this editor that you think he'd think himself worthy to change or delete sacred texts?>>
Let me get this straight..........he thought himself worthy to WRITE sacred texts which CONTRADICT other sacred texts.........but not to DELETE sacred texts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:27 AM JasonChin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by AdminAsgara, posted 10-11-2004 3:37 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 3:55 AM JasonChin has replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2381 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 113 of 149 (149013)
10-11-2004 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:32 AM


Re: Minor?
Jason, do you usually ignore suggestions by persons of authority? I have been posting to you in two different fora. Please read my posts and respond that you have done so.

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe


http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:32 AM JasonChin has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 114 of 149 (149015)
10-11-2004 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:11 AM


actually, i know several people on this board that might make that claim.>>
Unless you count God as an individual, I've never heard anyone claim this.
thus the joke. it clearly doesn't hold up to analysis, does it?
no, the two running examples we've used, homer and shakespeare, are questioned ALL the time. and shakespeare's hardly ancient.>>
There's minor speculation, but never the HELLBENT attempt to disprove traditional authorship.
um, actually. yes. and it's well accepted in the academic community that shakespeare plaigarized. turns out he just wrote great poetry and prose in his plays, not the plots themselves. the plot he borrowed from other sources. i cited one above, "hamlet" by kyd.
similarly, "the lion king" is great animation, but the plot was lifted from shakespeare's version of hamlet.
You said earlier that most flood myths involve a man told by the dvine to build an ark, take life aboard with him and repopulate the Earth. That's clearly based on the same story.
a good portion of them, yes. some involve the equivalent of submarines, some involve fleeing to the mountains that don't get covered. and some, well, some just destory everything and start again.
the idea of them being based on some real event is not absurd. the idea of it actually being a global flood is.
wow. every culture has a creation myth too, where a god or gods creates almost everything.>>
Which I claim as a real event too, so you only hurt your own argument by bringing this up.
well, yes, presumably we came into existance at some point. how do you know which account is true?
there's a sort of collective conciousness thing that goes on with mankind. at one time, people all over the world were making fat little women idols, with somethign covering their heads and usually more than two breasts. did anyone like this really exist?
If the story's comedic, it's clearly not intended to be taken literally.
clearly. i find it funny. don't you? i think you're missing a lot if you fail to see the humor in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:11 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:29 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 136 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 5:26 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 115 of 149 (149020)
10-11-2004 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:32 AM


Re: Minor?
Let me get this straight..........he thought himself worthy to WRITE sacred texts which CONTRADICT other sacred texts.........but not to DELETE sacred texts?
no. for the thousanth time.
genesis is a compilation, not originally a sacred text in and of itself. the "author" of genesis had at least 2, probably 3 sources which were merged into a single text during some unifying period of hebrew history, in order to preserve existing tradition. the best candidate for this time would be during or slightly after the babylonian exile. this explains the babylonian influences.
genesis is the work of an editor or redactor. essentially a scribe who compiled texts. this person did not write any of the texts which he compiled, merely copied them.
also, according to jewish tradition, hashem, the name of the lord, may not be erased once written. so, no, he couldn't have deleted any of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:32 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:38 AM arachnophilia has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 116 of 149 (149021)
10-11-2004 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:27 AM


Re: Minor?
Shakespeare's work was artistic, not ancient and venerated like Homer, Aristotle and the Bible.
been to an english department at a university lately?
also, i've heard thoughts that shakespeare himself might have been responsible for the english wordings in the king james version of the psalms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:27 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:21 AM arachnophilia has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 149 (149032)
10-11-2004 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by arachnophilia
10-11-2004 3:57 AM


Re: Minor?
Admin, I hear ya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 3:57 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 4:47 AM JasonChin has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 149 (149033)
10-11-2004 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by arachnophilia
10-11-2004 3:48 AM


the idea of them being based on some real event is not absurd.>>
Then we agree here.
well, yes, presumably we came into existance at some point. how do you know which account is true?>>
They all have the common thread of creation........therefore, by the universal account of the most ancient of sources, man was created by the divine.
Everything else is just detail.
at one time, people all over the world were making fat little women idols, with somethign covering their heads and usually more than two breasts.>>
I thought those were only found in Europe.
clearly. i find it funny. don't you? i think you're missing a lot if you fail to see the humor in it.>>
Perhaps.........but my point is, if it's clearly not intended to be taken literally, then it's clearly allegorical. If it's clearly allegorical, then you can't use its historical inaccuracies as proof that the Bible isn;t inerrant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 3:48 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 4:55 AM JasonChin has replied
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 4:55 AM JasonChin has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 149 (149035)
10-11-2004 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by arachnophilia
10-11-2004 3:55 AM


Re: Minor?
genesis is a compilation, not originally a sacred text in and of itself. the "author" of genesis had at least 2, probably 3 sources which were merged into a single text during some unifying period of hebrew history, in order to preserve existing tradition>>
So you admit that 1 and 2, in their present form, are clearly intended to be read as one continuous story?
If this is so, perhaps they were never NOT intended to be read as one continuous story......and maybe it's the CONTRADICTIONS in them that were added at a later period.....
also, according to jewish tradition, hashem, the name of the lord, may not be erased once written>>
I've never heard this name.......what does it mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 3:55 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 4:44 AM JasonChin has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1422 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 120 of 149 (149037)
10-11-2004 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 4:38 AM


Re: Minor?
genesis is a compilation, not originally a sacred text in and of itself. the "author" of genesis had at least 2, probably 3 sources which were merged into a single text during some unifying period of hebrew history, in order to preserve existing tradition>>
If this is so, perhaps they were never NOT intended to be read as one continuous story......and maybe it's the CONTRADICTIONS in them that were added at a later period.....
no. are you dense? how did you get that from what i wrote? i said they came from two separate sources, and were unified under and editor.
I've never heard this name.......what does it mean?
ha-shem. "the name." ie: yhvh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:38 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:59 AM arachnophilia has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024