Contradictions: Hint that Genesis 1 and 2 are Allegorical

And because of that you can't recognize any other evidence."Belief gets in the way of learning."

"And because of that you can't recognize any other evidence."I don't need to CoyoteOnce discovered ..... eternally bound.... and I do know about the "other evidence" rendered correctly ... a perfect parallel with the Genesis account of creationI heard the coyotes howling last night where I live and thought about youEdited by Straightshot, : No reason given.Edited by Straightshot, : No reason given.

Ipetrich,You must be an atheist or evolutionist, as you are just into theories rather than trying to discern truths.The exact dating method of Genesis, written by Moses, shows consistencies and agrees with the geologic record... meaning it is not allegorical but definitive and exact, and fits in with all other time frames of creation from the BEGINNING.Deniers will deny, but denials are not proofs of an allegorical semantic GENESIS.Do the math, see the time frames, note the scenario of events and the consistencies..... and then test out the ultimate writer of Genesis. Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

Genesis 1 provides the big picture summary of creation week. So this is God's viewpoint.
Genesis 2 zooms in to day 6 when Adam was created. Now we see things from Adam's viewpoint, something not possible before he was created.

Sorry but that is simply nonsense.Speaking as a life long Anglican Christian the purpose of Genesis 1 & Genesis 2&3 is not creation. Creation in both cases is simply a plot device; irrelevant to the goal of the stories.This is not an unusual or unique position. Quoting from the Pastoral Letter on opposing Creationism written in 1981 by Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta:

quote:

---

In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

---

But there is even more. The God character in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God character in Genesis 2&3.In the much younger account in Genesis 1 the God is aloof, overarching, totally competent, acting by will alone but apart, separate, having no contact, communion or interactions with the creation. In the older account found in Genesis 2&3 the God is entirely different, human, somewhat fumbling, learning on the job by trial and error but having direct contact and communion and interaction with the created.Nor is the story in Genesis 2&3 told from Adam's point of view.The position you market is simply that of the apologist trying to deny what is actually written and to make the Bible fit the narrative created by the apologist.

Sorry, my God is consistent and the Trinity is consistent and true, despite your preachers insistence that it is contradictory.True Science proves al fields of science, and luck and chance have nothing to do with true Science.The Bible is literal and means what it says and states. The writer of Genesis was Moses, and he knew the Lord face to face. You denying this, is wierd, strange and contradictory.. nevertheless as a individual you are allowed to deviate and make up whatever stories you desire that fits your lifestyle. Go for it.I will just stick to science and the logic and reason and mathematics, physics and chemistry and viology of creation. It proves itself.... without contradiction. Literal and meaningful.

The god you market is a picayune nobody. Yest once again you simply misrepresent what I posted. Your delusion does not change the facts of what is actually written in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3.Sorry but what I posted is supported by the actual text while what you post is mere nonsense and fable.

quote:

---

But there is even more. The God character in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God character in Genesis 2&3.

​

In the much younger account in Genesis 1 the God is aloof, overarching, totally competent, acting by will alone but apart, separate, having no contact, communion or interactions with the creation. In the older account found in Genesis 2&3 the God is entirely different, human, somewhat fumbling, learning on the job by trial and error but having direct contact and communion and interaction with the created.

​

Nor is the story in Genesis 2&3 told from Adam's point of view.

​

The position you market is simply that of the apologist trying to deny what is actually written and to make the Bible fit the narrative created by the apologist.

---

Thats funny Jar..You say that the facts of Genesis 1,2 and 3 are facts but allegorical... allegorical facts.. Hmm a new evolutionary word, that defies explanation, just thought up to further confuse your mind and the minds of readers..Allegorical facts....I like literal facts and science not your semantic evolutionary 'allegorical facts'

And you continue to misrepresent what I and others say.What I said is that it is a fact that the stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2&3 say what is actually written in the story.I did not say anything about allegorical facts.You need to stop lying Davidjay.

A good explanation is provided by Johnathon Sarfati in "The Genesis Account".Is the God character in Genesis 1 entirely different than the God character in Genesis 2&3?No, it is just focusing on different aspects of the one God. Genesis 1 looks at the the big picture, the God of all Creation. The name for God in the chapter, Elohim, reflects this. In Genesis 2 we move in to the view of God who has a personal relationship with mankind, and this is reflected in the use of Jahweh for God.The different names for God has led to the Documentary Hypothesis, the JEDP view of authorship. This was popular when I studied the OT at university but has come under criticism in recent years. Instead as Sarfati argues in that it is the same God with different names reflecting different roles. This should come as no surprise since we recognise that people can fill different roles in life and be perceived differently in each. Johnathan Thurston is a different person in his role as captain of the Cowboys and as a family man.Genesis 1 provides the big picture of God as the Creator of the universe. In this big picture view God said, Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness,...", then quickly moves on to "so on the seventh day he rested from all his work." in Gen 2:2.Then Gen 2 steps back to cover the creation of people in more detail.Why does it start by saying "Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, ...".? These are a specific type of plants distinct from those made on day 3. These are siyach hassadeh, shrub of the field, and eseb hassadeh, plants of the field. These are the cultivated food plants. Similarly in Gen 2:19 some take this to indicate that animals and birds were created after man but the correct translation of the Hebrew wayyitser is the pluperfect "had formed" which shows they had already been created before Adam.God formed Adam from aphar. Aphar is generally translated as dust but can also mean damp soil. Then God breathed the breath of life into Adam. This does not refer to breathing air but refers to the breath of the spirit of life. Similarly in the New Testament Jesus breathed on his disciples and said to receive the Holy Spirit. Thus Man is in the world and of the world but also has a divine spirit within.The naming of the animals then establishes Man's dominion and stewardship over the living world but also emphasises his difference to them. Some dispute that Adam would not have had time to name all the animals and birds in one day. However Adam only had to name the livestock (behemah), birds (oph hashamayim) and beasts of the field (chayyat) and the created kinds would have been less than the derived species of today, so this could have been done in a few hours.But for Adam no suitable helper was found. ...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 word for helper is ezer and is also used to God being our helper, so it does not indicate that Eve is inferior to Adam. Instead she is
bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;So all of the events in Genesis 2 are consistent with Genesis 1. These are not two separate accounts but one unified account.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

Too funny.Sorry but you are simply making shit up and adding to what is actually written; the classic dishonesty of the apologist.

You make shit up in your intestines, thats biological fact, not evolutionary allegorical facts...and then say I misrepresent your feces, as if it wasn;t feces.Evolutionists are so desperate to degrade the Lord and His Biology, yet try to take credit for His amazing creations.Now thats contradictory, they are so confused.The Lord via Moses, His prophet and the writer of Genesis, was not confused or talking about a myth, but the straight forward chronology and dating and history of mankind.Evolutionists have no history and still dont know where mankind came from...

Try dealing with what people actually post instead of your delusions and what is actually written in the Bible instead of you dogma.

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.

So you're suggesting that Moses knowingly put two contradictory accounts side by side? Or was he too stupid to notice? No, Moses would have understood these as two complementary versions, and they have been read that way for thousands of years. People thousands of years ago were just as intelligent as we are. Actually there was an article I saw several years ago suggesting people are becoming less intelligent.