Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
41 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Tangle, xongsmith (6 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,114 Year: 12,862/23,288 Month: 587/1,527 Week: 26/240 Day: 7/19 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Contradictions: Hint that Genesis 1 and 2 are Allegorical
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 100 (737993)
10-03-2014 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by djufo
10-02-2014 8:07 PM


The original texts do not come from clans. They come from civilizations and empires.

As you said in Message 38, prove it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by djufo, posted 10-02-2014 8:07 PM djufo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 11:35 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 100 (738042)
10-04-2014 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by djufo
10-04-2014 11:35 AM


I am surprised by your lack of knowledge.

Whuh? You don't know me. We all lack knowledge of many things.

Why would you be surprised by a random person's ignorance of some thing?

Unless you were just acting like a jerk?

The original historical data we have of our origins comes from the Sumerian civilization. Later inherited by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians and so on.

Oh, that's what you were talking about. You just posted a short little one-liner response to an 11 year old post. I didn't really think you were replying within the context of that thread, but still, its hard to tell what someone is talking about from just 14 words.

I was way off with what I thought you were referring to as the "original texts".

On the other hand, interestingly enough, the pseudo scientific fictional theory of human evolution does come from a clan or a group of followers with a specific agenda.

What does that have to do with this?

Surely you're not trying to bait me?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 11:35 AM djufo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 39 of 100 (738202)
10-06-2014 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by djufo
10-04-2014 3:06 PM


Yes I was referring to the original (Sumerian) writings coming from ancient times.

Can you see why someone might be confused when you come in and reply to a post, that is over 10 years old, that is talking about the books of Genesis in the Bible and when you refer to the "original writings" you are not talking about the Bible at all but instead are talking about some other, practically unrelated, ancient civilization?

You didn't even hint at the fact that you were not referring to the Bible at all.

Replies are tied to other messages and we typically stay within the context of those messages. To suddenly change to something completely different, with no mention of it to your audience, is only going to cause problems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by djufo, posted 10-04-2014 3:06 PM djufo has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by deerbreh, posted 11-24-2014 2:33 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 100 (742769)
11-24-2014 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by deerbreh
11-24-2014 2:33 PM


Well, in fact there is evidence of borrowing of themes from other creation accounts, particularly Mesopotamian, which includes Sumerian.

Sure, like the great deluge in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The difference is that the Hebrews modified the accounts to change them from polytheistic to monotheistic.

Meh, I wouldn't ascribe so much intention to that action, and especially not to them in general as a group.

I consider it more of an unintentional cultural evolution. And they went from polytheism, through henotheism, and then onto monotheism. So it wasn't really a "Hey guys, let's change all this stuff to be talking about one god", its was more of a gradual cultural change across generations.

The reason for the differences in the two accounts is that they have different authors/sources - Genesis 1:1–2:3 is Priestly and Genesis 2:4–24 is Jahwistic. The two accounts were actually written in reverse order, i.e., the Jahwist account was written first, and the Priestley account written later.

Indeed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by deerbreh, posted 11-24-2014 2:33 PM deerbreh has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 100 (743576)
12-02-2014 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by ICANT
12-02-2014 2:39 AM


Re: Genesis 1 and 2
The story in chapter 1 and the story in chapter 2 are two different stories and happened billions if not trillions or more years in our time apart.

You're still pushing your stupid gap theory?

Where are you putting the break in Genesis this time?

Still between Gen 4 and Gen 5?

For the lurkers who are unaware, last time we discussed this ICANT had Gen 2 - Gen 4 all happening in a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, and then you go to Chapter 5 after the end of Chapter 1.

Have you though of a better argument than "just coincidence" for why Chapter 4 ends with a man named Adam having a son named Seth who had a son name Enos, and Chapter 5 begins with a man named Adam having a son named Seth who had a son name Enos?

Is your position still that those are two different groups of people who just happen to have the exact same names?

Or have you modified your theory at all?

Weren't you saying something about how verses 25 and 26 shouldn't be in Chapter 4, or something? You make any head way with that?

quote:
Genesis 4:

25 And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.

26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.


...

quote:
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:



This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2014 2:39 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2014 9:16 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 100 (743840)
12-05-2014 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by ICANT
12-02-2014 9:16 PM


Re: Genesis 1 and 2
You have me mixed up with someone else.

No, I've debated this with you before.

I have never advocated a gap.

That's exactly what you are doing... maybe you don't know what a Gap Theory is:

quote:
According to this {Gap Theory} concept, Genesis 1:1 describes the initial creation of the universe.

...

But then occurred a devastating global cataclysm, destroying all life on Earth and leaving a vast fossil graveyard everywhere. This situation is then said to be what is described in Genesis 1:2. "And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep."


Is that not exctly what you are describing?

The heavens and the earth began to exist in Genesis 1:1.
Genesis 2:4 claims that it and what follows is the (history) generations of the heavens and the earth in 'the' day God created the heavens and the earth.

That day (light period) lasted from the beginning to exist of the heavens and the earth until the evening (dark period) found at Genesis 1:2.

No gap at all just one light period and one dark period declared to be day one by God Himself.

The "gap" is between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. There are no verses between those two in the Bible. You are putting a bunch of stuff happening in between those two versus, thus you have a gap between them.

The problem that arrises is where do you close the gap? Do you have the rest of the Bible all the way through Revelation happening before Gen 1:2? Or do you cut it off somewhere else?

Last time you were closing the gap between Gen 4 and Gen 5. You said that the opening verse in Gen 5:

quote:
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

says that it all took place in the day that God created man in his likeness, which you say is the stuff that takes place in Gen 1.

But that doesn't work because Gen 4 ends with the exact same characters that Gen 5 begins with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2014 9:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 100 (767616)
08-31-2015 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Straightshot
08-30-2015 7:50 PM


Re: Genesis 6-day account is allegorical, no conflict evolution
The Genesis account of creation is absolutely true

The only way to come to that conclusion is to first assume it is true and then interpret all the scripture into fitting into the assumption that it is all true.

Like you did above with the idea that:

quote:
He simply has not revealed all of the details of the time lapsing between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2

You see, there's no reason to think that until you have gone through the scripture, already assuming it is true, and realizing that this must be the case in order to maintain scriptures' truthfulness.

What other reason is there to think that there is a gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2? The only reason is that it must be the case if we want to assume that scripture is true.

That's not only a terrible way to find the truth, its is awful theology and a bastardization of the Bible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Straightshot, posted 08-30-2015 7:50 PM Straightshot has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 100 (811137)
06-05-2017 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by CRR
06-05-2017 6:17 AM


Re: No contradictions
So all of the events in Genesis 2 are consistent with Genesis 1. These are not two separate accounts but one unified account.

But you haven't shown that.

Rather than looking at the words and coming to a conclusion on whether they are the same story or not, you just assumed they were the same story and the provided whatever explanation would be needed if that was the case.

It is simply begging the question, it is not "showing" that it is true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 6:17 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 5:17 PM New Cat's Eye 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 © 2020