|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I was asked the other day, "What do literalists do with Genesis One and Two? In Genesis 1, it's the animals, then man. In Genesis 2, it's man, then the animals. Doesn't that destroy literal interpretations?"
I told him that what I said, when I was a YEC, was that Genesis 1 describes the creation of the universe, while Genesis 2 described the creation of the Garden of Eden. He said, "So, God made a whole new set of animals for the garden? That doesn't make much sense." Has anyone heard any better reconciliations of those two chapters? I didn't argue very hard for mine, because I don't believe it anymore. I think those are two unrelated creation stories, but there are a lot of people who don't. Do they have anything better than the universe/garden explanation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
We were told that the second account does not say the animals were created after man, simply that they were named after man.
A quick check of the text shows that this doesn't actually work. I guess you could argue that God simply created 'examples' of each animal after man?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Bump.
Can we really not do better than this? Is there no literalist to provide a more reasonable explanation than us ex-YECer's have come up with? Listen, our whole church/village is having weekly meetings watching a series of evolution videos and discussing afterwards. There were several holdouts against evolution until just the last couple weeks. It was only last week that someone went into our leader's home and said, "But isn't it possible Genesis one is literal and means six 24-hour days." He was told, "So, you want to be a fundamentalist. That's okay with me. But tell me, which fundamentalist do you want to be? A Genesis one fundamentalist or a Genesis two fundamentalist." He then read Genesis one and two and said, "Wow, I see your point." So this is a real-life situation to save someone or several someone's from our insidious attack on the literacy of the Scriptures. Our leader insists that no one has a good reconciliation of Genesis one and two. How could they? You're making it look like he's right. Oh, by the way. You could maybe pop over to http://EvC Forum: Please explain this clear Bible error. -->EvC Forum: Please explain this clear Bible error. and provide a good answer for that apparent Bible contradiction, and if you can, then whenever I tell anyone in our village about that contradiction, I'll tell them about your answer, too! Anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
q3psycho Inactive Member |
This is a very simple matter. There is no contradiction. God has created the Universe in parallel. There are many examples where more than one thing is simultaneously true. For example, the trinity. Nobody has a problem with that. It is not a contradiction. There are three things true at the same time.
It is also night and day at the same time on different points of the earth. Is this a contradiction? In fact, it is a different date and day of the week. Yet it is the same absolute time. Contradiction? Of course not. If I send a space ship out to mars and back at the speed of light with a clock on it and also use a clock on earth to see how long it was gone - is there a contradiction? Both clocks are right, aren't they? But they are different. Is it not true that particles appear out of nowhere in science experiments and yet matter is neither created nor destroyed? Well, this is only an apparent contradiction from our frame of reference. So therefore how can one fret over such a simple thing as Genesis 1 and 2? If God wants it to be Tuesday on Wednesday or to have light while there is darkness - there is no contradiction in this. For particles or beings to appear and vanish has been observed empirically. God was merely working on a larger scale. Be advised the son of man will come like a thief in the night with power.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So, what you're saying is that it's a contradiction just like the "twins paradox", the International Date Line, and the Casimir Effect?
The difference between those contradictions and the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2, however, is that those other contradictions have explanations. You've provided none.
If God wants it to be Tuesday on Wednesday or to have light while there is darkness - there is no contradiction in this. I don't understand why not. Just because he's God, we're supposed to suspend sense? Maybe this is why the Bible turns off a lot of thinking people?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Yikes! I thought you were joking; just talking tongue-in-cheek. I looked up your other posts, though, and I guess you were serious.
It is also night and day at the same time on different points of the earth. Is this a contradiction? Well, no, but if I was at a meeting with Joe and Linda, and Joe and Linda said it was night when we had the meeting, and I say it was day, then there is a contradiction. You can't just dismiss any contradiction you want by appealing to the theory of relativity. If that were the case, we might as well close all our criminal courts, because any alibi would be possibly valid. Well, on the other hand, any alibi could be dismissed, because according to your interpretation of night and day on planet earth and Einstein's theory of relativity, the defendant could have been at school, in class, with his classmates, and out stealing a car--at the same time! There can be no contradiction, because clocks read different times as they travel at varying speeds. You have to give us some reason to accept your reasoning. What does "God has created the Universe in parallel" mean? It means he created man last and he created man first, and we're supposed to think that's not a contradiction? I think there's less problems with the world/Eden scenario. At least there God is creating the animals twice and two sets of animals exist, not creating the whole universe twice and only one universe existing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5913 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
I'm going to step out on some very thin ice here because I have VERY little Bible knowledge. However, a Coptic Orthodox friend of mine explained that the way Genesis 1 and 2 are written actually coincides with Egyptian storytelling techniques (since Moses is the guy who supposedly wrote Genesis this follows....I guess). Where a storyteller begins in a generalized way and then gets detailed. For example, I believe it says something about creating man and woman in his image, BUT it is explained in better detail in the 2nd chapter that God actually created man first in his image, then woman (maybe so we wouldn't think God was female in any way?, lol)...I guess it is supposed to be the same for the rest? Like I said cha-ching...two cents.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
q3psycho Inactive Member |
gentlemen, I thank you for your responses. I still do not see the problem. Is it not suspension of "sense" that particles appear as if by magic? Is it not suspension of "sense" that scientists are now talking about parallel universes?
I think there is a deeper mystery in genesis that we are only now coming to grips with. God can create the world simultaneously in different ways. As with the trinity, they are one and the same and yet different. I don't think this is suspending sense at all. This is instead the verification that the Bible incorporated advanced science long before man "discovered" it. At the same time genesis is supporting modern science by confirming the principle of parallel realities. Has it not also occurred to you that God can arrest the spin of the earth or slow the speed of light? A "day" may be a quantity of light. But it could be ten million years. How can we judge what happened before Adam and Eve? Nobody was there to record it. When methods of ship construction recover the lost technology of Noah's Ark all of you will be pretending it is a "modern" development. All of us will be saying "I told you so"!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Your argument appears to be "I'm confused by science, and I'm confused by Genesis 1 and 2, so they must be the same thing."
I have a pointy-haired boss that I'd like to introduce you to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
q3psycho Inactive Member |
I'm not confused. Remember - you need faith. That is what keeps you from being confused. You can always figure out the answer if you have faith.
Like the big bang. The ideas weren't doing so well so they invented this big bang. It covers up all of the problems. But now they can't figure out how to slow it down. But if you have faith they will invent some other thing to stop it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Has it not also occurred to you that God can arrest the spin of the earth or slow the speed of light? A "day" may be a quantity of light. But it could be ten million years. A day may be a quantity of light, but it could be ten million years. That's fine, and it was suggested by kabbalists before science proved the world was old. However, it has nothing to do with what was talked about. One, I was referring to literalists, who object to ten million years, and two, no matter how long it took, Genesis One and Two have a different order, so that they can't be taken literally and not contradict. Nothing you've said refutes that.
Like the big bang. The ideas weren't doing so well so they invented this big bang. It covers up all of the problems. But now they can't figure out how to slow it down. But if you have faith they will invent some other thing to stop it. If you're going to insult scientists and science, then you should get your facts straight before you do so. It's amazing how people who know nothing about science (which this quote proves includes you) feel perfectly free to make grossly offensive statements about those who do. Maybe you could try that faith you talked about and believe that it's wrong to slander, especially when you have no reason to slander except for maybe some false information you heard third-hand somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Remember - you need faith. Circular reasoning. You're explaining how it's not a discrepancy by asking us to assume that it's not a discrepancy. That's bogus, faith or not. Faith is not the opposite of reason, my friend.
The ideas weren't doing so well so they invented this big bang. It covers up all of the problems. But now they can't figure out how to slow it down. What are you talking about? Why do I have this sense that you don't know anything about cosmology?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
q3psycho Inactive Member |
You guys are pretty tough.
Um, sorry if I slandered anyone. Isn't all of the Bible taken on faith? I'm being honest about that you guys. You have to believe in it first. That's what makes it inerrant. If I lose faith then I'll be like you and say all of these things are wrong and inconsistent. On the big bang thing, isn't it now a problem because the Universe will just expand forever and get cold? Don't they have to invent some other thing so the universe doesn't fall apart? what good is a universe that can't even stay together?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If I lose faith then I'll be like you and say all of these things are wrong and inconsistent. Why don't you try applying your intellect instead of your faith? I assure you it's possible to reconcile a reasonable mind with a spiritual life. Plenty of people here do it, though I personally have no interest. The inerrancy or errancy of the Bible doesn't have anything to do with how meaningful it is as a spiritual guide. Some things are mythically true. Romeo and Juliet doesn't have to be a true story to say something true about love.
On the big bang thing, isn't it now a problem because the Universe will just expand forever and get cold? I think you misunderstand how science works. We don't invent parts of theories to avoid outcomes we don't like. Einstein did it once and forever after referred to it as his "greatest blunder." If the universe is going to expand forever, then that's what it's going to do. No amount of invention on the part of theorists is going to change that.
what good is a universe that can't even stay together? What does it matter if that's the universe we've got?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
q3psycho Inactive Member |
Well Mr Truthlover,I don't know if you saw that I said I didn't mean to offend anybody. Grossly offensive? Man, I sure didn't mean to be that way. I'm not a scientist. But I do like to read. Like reader's digest. Slander? That is really bad.
I thought they invented the big bang because the universe was expanding. So you have to ask where it started from. Well, the earliest staring point to expand from is from nothing. So that covers one problem - where it got started. But now you've got more problems. But this isn't the place to discuss those. I just hope you're not still mad at me. Mr. Frog has been asking me hard questions and I don't like them very much. I can't see his post now. You know if I thought like you say intellectually about my wife there would be two problems with that. First, we'd never have sex. Second, I don't think we'd be in love. So is intellectualism everything?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024