Contradictions: Hint that Genesis 1 and 2 are Allegorical

Does that even have any meaning?

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:

---

Hi Cat,You have me mixed up with someone else. I have never advocated a gap.I have put forth what the text says.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.I believe in six light periods and six dark periods in which all 3 creation events took place.There was a creation in Genesis 1:1.
There was a creation event in Genesis 1:21.
There was a creation event in Genesis 1:27.Everything else that was done was work preformed on some pre-existing materials by God.God Bless,

More correctly it says day, and is silent about night. There is no denial of night or darkness. This is noteworthy because each of six creation 'days' is described as consisting of an evening and a morning.It's been pointed out to you before that your logic fails on this point and that you have no basis for making a 'determination'. Just as is the case with our common usage i.e. the seven days in a week OR farming during the day, each day can refer to 1) only the light period of a single day/night cycle, or 2) the combined day and night period making up a cycle, or 3) any period of time starting at any instant and equal to the day and night period.In short, the word day is clearly used in the text in ways other than what you are calling the definition. In fact the term 'day' is in two different ways within verse 1:5. The capitalized usage is for a light period, while the lower cased usage is for the combined period. Now let's see if there is any reason to pick out a particular usage for Gen 2:4. Hmm, no caps so perhaps we mean, a day/night cycle? Maybe.Other than supporting what appears to be a bad reading of Genesis, there is no reason to assume that the term day as used in Genesis means a light period, with the sole exception of those places where that usage is explicit. Well at least the text does not contradict you on that particular assumption.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, I've debated this with you before. 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 "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.

My commentThe difference between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is quite simpleThe Lord makes a statement that in the beginning He createdThere is a vast period of time between this event and about 6000 year ago when the earth is seen as being desolate and void of life forms as the result of His judgment against Satan and his rebellion [Job 38:1-7]The sons of God initially were the created angels [Job 38:1-7; Isaiah 14; Ezekiel 28; Revelation 12]Satan defected and 1/3 of the angels followedThen about 6000 years ago the Lord moved to recondition a judged earthThe earth and the other planets are of the same age and were created in the beginning ..... perhaps billions of years old or moreAnd today the other planets continue to bear the scars of great judgment, upheaval, and destruction including the same for the earth under the earth's surface .... none of the other planets are capable of supporting life formsOnly the earth was reconditioned just as Genesis 1:3-25 records the Lord's actionsThese things are all recent events to replace life support systems for the earth .... but the other planets remain the same .... void and lifelessThe reconditioning acts should be observed from the earth itself as the Lord began the makeover .... both the earth and all of the other heavenly bodies including the sun and moon were present and created long beforeIn this case He made the sun, moon, and stars to appear from the earth by dissipating the thick waters above from those below forming the atmospheric layer between .... all were already there but could not be seen because of the darkness formed by the water vapors above the great deep which covered the earthSo His actions brought forth a reconditioned earth for His next action ..... to form the human being for inhabiting the newly reconditioned earth [Genesis 1:26]His initial creation of the earth and universe are all of extreme age, but the reconditioned earth and the presence of humans is of about 6000 years old according to the genealogical record of humanity recorded in the BibleHe simply has not revealed all of the details of the time lapsing between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2If so, one would need a fleet of semi-trucks to carry the Bible aroundWhat is revealed to the human in scripture and by natural observation is directly related to the introduction of mankind on the earth about 6000 years ago Edited by Straightshot, : No reason given.Edited by Straightshot, : No reason given.

There are many lines of evidence that show your ca. 6,000 year estimate is wrong for humans.Depending on where you draw the human boundary, that date is off by either a couple of hundred thousand years (archaic Homo sapiens), or about 2.8 million years (Homo erectus).

Well that is what you say Coyote, but the Lord reveals the truth of the matterThe Genesis account of creation is absolutely true

The Genesis account of creation has been disproved in any number of ways.Your belief makes no difference, as the facts are unchanged by your belief.(Old tribal myths are not the most reliable form of evidence, and that's what you're promoting.)

Why don't you use periods and paragraphs? Is there some meaning to it?Your posts are typographically tedious to read.When you make an assertion followed by chapter and verse, you are just making an assertion followed by letters and numbers, which is to say, assertions barenaked. Perhaps you should quote the relevant scripture and argue why it means what you say and put a little flesh on the bones.Outlines don't make effective arguments.

The drama never ends OmAnd you know quite well what a statement is, followed by scriptural referenceEdited by Straightshot, : No reason given.

"The Genesis account of creation has been disproved in any number of ways.Your belief makes no difference, as the facts are unchanged by your belief."You have the wrong facts CoyoteEdited by Straightshot, : No reason given.Edited by Straightshot, : No reason given.

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.

Inconvenient facts, for you, perhaps, but not wrong.Scientific facts are established by observation, testing, and verification.Religious "facts" are established by dogma, scripture and the like. Testing is the last thing believers want.But, if you think some scientific facts are wrong this is a good place to discuss the issue. But please, don't just reply with a few dozen bible quotes as if that were evidence.

"But please, don't just reply with a few dozen bible quotes as if that were evidence"Sorry .... I cannot complyI have discovered truth communicated by the one and only God of creation .... no doubtI would suggest that you dd the same .... but you will do .... what you will do