Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 124 (154342)
10-30-2004 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by crashfrog
10-29-2004 12:57 AM


I think Kelly was suggesting that Hebrew terminology for beastes of the field is different for other animals.....BTW, I find it ironic that a man could critisize others for not understanding biology and then make the assertion that all animals live in fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 10-29-2004 12:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by RustyShackelford, posted 10-30-2004 2:08 AM RustyShackelford has not replied
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2004 6:13 AM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 124 (154344)
10-30-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RustyShackelford
10-30-2004 2:06 AM


While on that topic, exactly where is Behe lacking in his understanding of biology, Crash?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RustyShackelford, posted 10-30-2004 2:06 AM RustyShackelford has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AdminNosy, posted 10-30-2004 3:00 AM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 124 (154725)
11-01-2004 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by crashfrog
10-31-2004 11:17 PM


Of course "beastes of the field" refers to all animals......after all, all animals live in fields......ESPECIALLY fish.......desert dwelling creatures........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 10-31-2004 11:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-01-2004 12:31 AM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 124 (154726)
11-01-2004 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RustyShackelford
11-01-2004 12:29 AM


"I don't believe you"? What kind of weak counter-assertion is that? It seems clear that Crash's primary debating technique is sticking his fingers in his ears and humming to himself to drown out the sounds of arguments which contradict his own.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-01-2004 12:29 AM RustyShackelford has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by coffee_addict, posted 11-01-2004 2:09 AM RustyShackelford has not replied
 Message 22 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 2:47 AM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 124 (154876)
11-01-2004 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Kelly. J. Wilson
11-01-2004 10:18 AM


This is in reference to message 17, the last relevant message. The individual who referred me to this group listed your name Crash among a few others, as excellent debaters. After reading message 17 and seeing how quickly your argument degenerated into an expression of your personal feelings like 'I don't believe you,' rather than real evidence, I must maintain that the individual clearly overestimated you.
Crash is one of those guys you love while you're in agreement and hate when you're not.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Kelly. J. Wilson, posted 11-01-2004 10:18 AM Kelly. J. Wilson has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 2:29 PM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 124 (154879)
11-01-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by crashfrog
11-01-2004 11:12 AM


Well, I'm not, and I don't. I don't believe that "beasts of the field" is an antonym of "cattle". You've given me no reason to believe it, so why should I?
She gave you a direct quotation from a scholar of ancient Hebrew which stated her point as fact.......what more can she do to back up her point?
Now it's your turn to either make a non-laughable counter assertion or conceed the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 11:12 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 2:28 PM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 124 (154880)
11-01-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
11-01-2004 11:37 AM


There's more, too. I think the most devastating difference between Gen 1 and 2 is the drastically different character of God presented. In the first, he speaks and his will is made manifest - he's the vast creator God of deism; creating, seeing the goodness, and resting. In the second, he creates with his hands - he's a personal God, taking an interest in his creation, guiding and nurturing it.
Which is perfectly consistant with the style of story telling used by the Hebrews in which you give a broad overview of the story and then go over it again in greater detail........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 11:37 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-01-2004 1:49 PM RustyShackelford has not replied
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 2:35 PM RustyShackelford has replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 124 (154883)
11-01-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RustyShackelford
11-01-2004 1:25 PM


The assertion that Genisis 1 and 2 were originally intended to be read as seperate stories, the first ending at verse 3 of chapter 2 and the second begining at verse 4, is a huge assumption based entirely on ONE apparent contradiction throughout the entirety of both.
The second creation story supposedly begins with verse 4, which states "This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." What proponents of this groundless theory never point out is that this supposed second creation story DOESN'T INCLUDE the creation of the Earth.......or the heavens........Meaning that the above verse, far from being the intended begining of a second chronology, was placed there to CONNECT the broad overview portion of the story with the more detailed account. And the heavens and earth are not the only things whose creation isn't outlined in the "second" chronology.......the creation of sea life, plant life and cattle isn't detailed either. I'll tell ya, if this supposed second story was actually intended to be read as a seperate creation story, I think it would have accounted for the existance of small details like the earth, the heavens, sea life, plant life and cattle.
But there is one apparent contradiction, I conceed, between the two stories, as PaulK mentioned earlier.......that being the creation of birds preceeding the creation of man. Still, that's a minor point, easily explained away as poetic liscense and/or errors in transcription and translation. It's a huge leap to take that one tiny chronological incongruity and assert that it's proof of dual chronology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-01-2004 1:25 PM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 124 (155699)
11-04-2004 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
11-01-2004 2:35 PM


Gen 1 and 2 have the same degree of detail.
Yep......apart from the fact that Genisis 2 doesn't mention the creation of sea life......or plant life......or cattle, apparently.......or the heavens or the earth.......
Other than that, same amount of detail.
They just have different details. That's what it means to be contradictory.
There's only one bit of contradiction completely confined to one verse, which is easily explained away as poetic liscence or error in trascription or translation........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2004 2:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2004 2:19 AM RustyShackelford has replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 124 (155712)
11-04-2004 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
11-04-2004 2:19 AM


There's no way to reverse the implied chronology of this sentence with anything as simple as a "transcript error."
Sure I can, when considering that it's in poetic form and that it's the only part that contradicts......
And you still can't get past the little fact that this supposed second chronology of the creation of heaven and earth is missing little details one would expect to find in a chronology, such as the creation of sea life, plant life, cattle and the heavens and earth themselves!
The very next verse has Adam naming "all cattle" with no mention of cattle having been brought before him. How did the cattle get there? Clearly, that's implied in "beasts of the field."
Actually, in the very verse you're referring to, there's a distinction made between beasts of the earth and cattle......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2004 2:19 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2004 11:13 AM RustyShackelford has not replied
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 11-04-2004 10:41 PM RustyShackelford has replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 124 (156472)
11-05-2004 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by doctrbill
11-04-2004 10:41 PM


"plant life" - verses 8,9
That's not the creation of plant life.......it's the creation of Eden.
"cattle" - ("every kind of animal and bird" verse 19, Living Bible)
And that's why serious Biblical students don't use paraphrase translations, like the Living Bible.......
"heavens and earth themselves" - verse 4
Saying verse 4 is an account of the creation of heaven and earth is like saying "let me tell ya 'bout a story 'bout a man named Jeb" is the entirety of the first episode of the Beverly Hillbillies........
This scenario depicts earth as a desert, so we shouldn't be surprised that there's no mention of sea life.
So, what, God decided later on "hey, I should add a few seas, lakes rivers, etc.......oh, and I should fill those with life"........
But it is fruitless to compare it with the other scenario, for there are far too many conflicting 'facts.'
So far, we've come up with ONE.......
Your concern about the difference between 'cattle' and 'beasts of the field' puzzles me. When I write I don't limit my expression.
You also don't speak ancient Hebrew......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by doctrbill, posted 11-04-2004 10:41 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-05-2004 10:59 PM RustyShackelford has not replied
 Message 77 by doctrbill, posted 11-06-2004 10:23 PM RustyShackelford has replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 124 (156475)
11-05-2004 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by RustyShackelford
11-05-2004 10:54 PM


Crash, you're missing the forrest for the trees.......does the time-line of the creation of animals and birds apparently conflict with the Genisis 1 creation of animals and birds? Yes. Can you call a creation story that doesn't include the creation of heaven, earth, sea life, plant life and cattle a seperate chronolgy? No, you can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RustyShackelford, posted 11-05-2004 10:54 PM RustyShackelford has not replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 124 (156713)
11-06-2004 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coragyps
11-06-2004 3:47 PM


Only a fundamentalist minority even pretend that there's one author of the Pentateuch.
Untrue, and you have no really solid evidence to back up multiple authorship.

"Atheists are just like theists; they find it highly disturbing when you try to weaken their faith." Myself, a couple minutes ago
I think it's cute that Sidelined changed his quote to be in direct opposition of mine. Internal thought
"I believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets...
I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen."
The Nicene Creed
Winner of the LSS's 2004 Longest Signature Award

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 11-06-2004 3:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by AdminJar, posted 11-06-2004 4:55 PM RustyShackelford has replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 124 (156715)
11-06-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by AdminJar
11-06-2004 4:55 PM


Re: Shorten the signature, third warning
I don't recall there being anything in the registration agreemen about signature length..........besides, I think this is less about the length of my signature and more about what my signature says......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by AdminJar, posted 11-06-2004 4:55 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by AdminJar, posted 11-06-2004 5:03 PM RustyShackelford has replied

  
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 124 (156732)
11-06-2004 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by AdminJar
11-06-2004 5:03 PM


Re: Shorten the signature, third warning
Oh, no, I'm gonna keep posting my signature like it is, as long as there's nothing against it in the rules.......because if there's nothing against it in the rules, there's not a damn thing you can do to stop me, correct? Can't put me in boot camp for NOT breaking the rules, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by AdminJar, posted 11-06-2004 5:03 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by AdminAsgara, posted 11-06-2004 5:33 PM RustyShackelford 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