|
Author
|
Topic: Genesis Creation Stories: Sequence Contradictions?
|
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2786 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: 01-08-2001
|
Re: Genesis 2
... it's clear from context that "field" refers to man tilled ground. I don't disagree with you on this point. But, and not to put too fine a point on it ... this ground has never been tilled, because there is, as yet, no man; so ... technically ... it is not yet 'man tilled ground,' not by Adam at any rate.
Riiiiight, God created the heavens, the earth.......but MIST, he couldn't handle THAT shit........ I was merely pointing out that your accusation, vis a vis: how atheist "read a lot into" the scripture; is something that you do as well.
Let me get this straight.......in Genisis 1, man was given dominion over every thing on the earth and commanded to multiply......in Genisis 2, every thing on the earth is created for him, and he's commanded to multiply....... HUGE difference. You seem to be avoiding the obvious. Perhaps you cannot see it. I will re-iterate:
In the first scenario humans are given dominion of "all the earth."
In the second scenario humans are screw-up slaves who get thrown out of Eden. You seem to be fixating on the command to multiply. I think that is a humorous aspect of the story. Who ever needed to be told? db
|
Angel
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 107 of 124 (157157)
11-08-2004 5:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
10-27-2004 10:33 PM
|
|
Reply to Jar
Jar "That might be true, but so far every major Christian Church has also come to the conclusion that there is overwhelming evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. That is why the Episcopal Church, Methodist Church, Lutheran Church, Roman Catholic Church, Presbyterian Church among others have come out in support of teaching the TOE and opposing Creationism." What evidence do you have, that you can present, that leads you to this conclusion? I am aware of the two different accounts of creation, and I keep in mind that these were written thousands of years after it happened ( possibly even millions ). With that said, I would have to come to the conclusion that they are close enough to being the same story, to be accurate.
Angel
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by jar, posted 10-27-2004 10:33 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 108 by jar, posted 11-08-2004 9:17 AM | | Angel has not replied | | | Message 109 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2004 10:05 AM | | Angel has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 108 of 124 (157190)
11-08-2004 9:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Angel
11-08-2004 5:21 AM
|
|
Re: Reply to Jar
Hi Angel, welcome home. The thread starter has said the discussion about that is OT and so I won't answer here beyond saying they have all appeared in courts, before legislatures and school boards opposing teaching Creationism. But I have presented the evidence many times here at EvC.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Angel, posted 11-08-2004 5:21 AM | | Angel has not replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
|
|
Message 109 of 124 (157218)
11-08-2004 10:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by Angel
11-08-2004 5:21 AM
|
|
Accuracy
If you have a reasonably low criteria for accuracy you might say that its "accurate enough". The problem some of us would have with that is the wild claims by some that this is the inerrent, perfect, etc word of God. That we are to believe what it says over any other evidence. Under those circumstances it's going to have to be held to a somewhat higher standard. If we take the Bible as "close enough" then it is correct about a flood. That is, there have been pretty nasty floods here and there affecting local civilizations. However, that is not what others claim as it's degree of accuracy. If it's just as good a story as people of the time could manage then we have not complaints with it. Just tell that to those who think it should be injected into the science class rooms.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Angel, posted 11-08-2004 5:21 AM | | Angel has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by Angel, posted 11-10-2004 1:55 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 110 of 124 (157254)
11-08-2004 11:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by crashfrog
11-07-2004 11:51 AM
|
|
Crashfrog writes: But it does take a scholar, apparently, to know that the chapter breaks are not from the original text, and can therefore be essentially disregarded. Since you brought up the "original text", what exactly does it say in Genesis 2? Also, what is the evidence that you use to support your notion that the chapter breaks inserted by biblical scholars can be essentially disregarded?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by crashfrog, posted 11-07-2004 11:51 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2004 11:35 AM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 111 of 124 (157257)
11-08-2004 11:14 AM
|
|
|
Note to thread participants: Since Crashfrog has implied here that he is, in fact, a biblical scholar, please allow him the opportunity to answer the questions himself. Thanks in advance.
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 112 of 124 (157264)
11-08-2004 11:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by dpardo
11-08-2004 11:12 AM
|
|
Also, what is the evidence that you use to support your notion that the chapter breaks inserted by biblical scholars can be essentially disregarded? The fact that they were inserted.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by dpardo, posted 11-08-2004 11:12 AM | | dpardo has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 113 of 124 (157266)
11-08-2004 11:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 111 by dpardo
11-08-2004 11:14 AM
|
|
Since Crashfrog has implied here that he is, in fact, a biblical scholar, please allow him the opportunity to answer the questions himself. Hey, I'm just a guy who can read what's clearly written in the Bible. If you think that makes me some kind of authority or scholar on the subject, well, that doesn't say much for your level of expertiese, now does it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by dpardo, posted 11-08-2004 11:14 AM | | dpardo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 114 by dpardo, posted 11-08-2004 1:22 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 114 of 124 (157299)
11-08-2004 1:22 PM
|
Reply to: Message 113 by crashfrog
11-08-2004 11:37 AM
|
|
I thought you were going to impress me. Oh well, at least you're consistent!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2004 11:37 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
|
|
Message 115 of 124 (157300)
11-08-2004 1:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
11-08-2004 11:35 AM
|
|
Some support
Since, Crash, you already acknowledge not being an expert you should supply the evidence that you were asked for. Should anyway actually.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2004 11:35 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
What's the question, again? Dpardo has already agreed that the chapter and verse breaks were inserted, so I don't entirely understand what's in question, here.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 115 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 1:24 PM | | AdminNosy has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 5:50 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
AdminNosy
Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: 11-11-2003
|
I misunderstood
dpardo has agreed that the breaks were inserted then? So I think it is dpardo's turn to explain why something not in the "original" can't be disregarded.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by crashfrog, posted 11-08-2004 5:37 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by dpardo, posted 11-08-2004 7:55 PM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
dpardo
Inactive Member
|
Re: I misunderstood
AdminNosy writes: So I think it is dpardo's turn to explain why something not in the "original" can't be disregarded. In defending the chapter break of Genesis 2, I defer to the knowledge of the biblical scholars that worked to produce our current translations. Per the translators of my King James version of the bible:
There are infinite arguments of this right christian and religious affection in Your Majesty; but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require. That these scholars, who by their declaration, worked to produce a "more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue", chose to include a chapter break at the point in question, which, by happenstance, is also in accord with other translations such as the NIV, NASB, and NLT, demonstrates that, indeed, the meaning of the original text is best understood with the chapter break in place.
But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God's sacred Word among us, which is that inestimable treasure which excelleth all the riches of earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven. Letter to King James VI, Holy Bible, King James Version.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by AdminNosy, posted 11-08-2004 5:50 PM | | AdminNosy has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 119 of 124 (157431)
11-08-2004 8:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 118 by dpardo
11-08-2004 7:55 PM
|
|
But why did they do it? Why did they put one where they did? Your post doesn't seem to answer those questions. For that matter, was it even the King James translators who inserted those breaks? Weren't the breaks in the Vulgate bible, as well? I ask because I don't know. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-08-2004 08:26 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 118 by dpardo, posted 11-08-2004 7:55 PM | | dpardo has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 121 by doctrbill, posted 11-10-2004 8:54 AM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Angel
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 120 of 124 (157816)
11-10-2004 1:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by NosyNed
11-08-2004 10:05 AM
|
|
Re: Accuracy
quote:
Just tell that to those who think it should be injected into the science class rooms.
I have no problem with telling anyone to keep religion out of school teachings, unless of course it is a private school, in which they can teach what they want. I wonder if those who fight for it realize that satanism is a religion? Wouldn't that make it legal for them to teach thier doctrine? Just a thought, anyway I agree that school is for education, home and church is for learning the Scripture.
Angel
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2004 10:05 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2