The First Questions In The Bible

quote:

---

Did God know it was going to happen? YES.

---

I don't mean to knit pick but if this is true, then God would be a liar(amongst other things).While I don't doubt God could see the future of mankind or a particular event(timeline) The scriptures support the concept that God designed and placed His human creations with free will. No matter how we contort it, we cannot have it both ways. Either humans had free will or they didn't. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

I have never gotten the sense that God created by trial and error, reading those scriptures, though this doesn't mean much when all is said and done. I am interested however, in the reasoning behind such a belief.As for prescience, from my own research it would seem as though God demonstrated a power of insight beyond human comprehension rather than crystal ball capacity. Although, both cases may very well produce similar results in the end. However, this attribute alone stands flimsy against the notion of God's will, which is all that is needed to cause things to happen.

You are correct, in all fairness, such a presentation of the creation account does seem to indicate a trial and error process. However, in a case such as this, it would seem as though we are looking a contextual misinterpretation rather than a shift in accountability.Thought the concept of a duality in the creation accounts is not new, I have always found it ironic that people would choose to believe in a doctrine that falls in direct contradiction to a larger portion of the scriptures. In as case such as this one, negating the claims on God's infinite power and wisdom. This characteristic alone should be enough to draw attention to the discrepancy.In the case of the two Creation accounts of Genesis, a closer look will help put things into perspective and demonstrate that the scriptures are not in contradiction after all.If we look at Genesis 1, we can clearly see where the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2, it seems as though man was created before the animals. The reason for this is that the two chapters are presented as different viewpoints. The first describing the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them whereas the second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.We can conclude this by taking note of the first account which is presented chronologically(six consecutive days or periods). The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. God then instructs Adam to name commence in the naming of the animals. Now, then, is the time to mention that God was forming from the ground all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.So you see, contrary to what some would believe, God was not working by trial and error(as it would seem). But within the proper context God falls right in line with the remaining scriptures, stating that he is infinite in power and wisdom.Taking it a step further, we could even conclude today that it would be childish for any being with the capacity to create something as complex as the universe, to stumble upon details as obvious as Adam lacking a female companion. This is purely the result of humans trying to reason like God.

quote:

---

don't mean to sound crass here, but the idea of "contradicting a larger portion of the scriptures" is simply a myth. the bible is library of texts, many of which were written specifically to find fault with other texts already in the library. there are many different ideas of god and judaism contained between its two covers. and anyone who pretends that there is one consistent ideology either hasn't read the text critically enough, or is trying to decieve. or both. on a strictly logical level, the reason we have so much redundancy (2 creation acounts, 2 sets of 10 commandments, 4 gospels, kings AND chronicles, etc) is because of the differences between the texts. if they simply said the same thing, there'd only be one of each.

---

I'm not sure my argument was properly conveyed here. The contradiction issue takes place when a particular theory or beliefs is chosen based on scriptural understanding which ends up in contradiction throughout the biblical criticism. For example, there was no need to choose the second account of Genesis over the first as the outstanding theory, yet it was chosen. However, in doing so, the person(s) find themselves in contempt with numerous biblical terms and compromising on host of accounts and other biblical scriptures.So to summarize, we have people cherry picking one out of many possibilities while completely ignoring the signs that the reasoning is not withstanding of the remainder of scriptures.Such an example though basic, raises some very obvious issues with the reasoning you presented.

quote:

---

but the problem is just that, and you will have to put aside your religion for a second to see this: some depictions of god are NOT infinitely powerful or wise. the one J certainly is not. the one in E is only slightly better. but it takes some willingness to look at the texts with fresh, unbiased eyes, and not try to read our religious beliefs into them.

​

in J, we see a god who gravely regrets ever making mankind. that's a very human emotion, for someone so abstractly different than us. and quite odd for a god who is perfect in every way, omnipotent and omniscient, to admit that things have gotten out of his control.

​

now, the god of isaiah and jeremiah might disagree. there, god himself takes credit for creating everything, and controlling everything: the blessing of the promised land, and the curse of exile. it's all god, and nothing ever left his control and watchful eye for a second. it's important to recognize that these are two different ideas, and they are both very valid and present in the text. and they both speak truths about the nature of god. without one depcition, the bible only gives us half the picture.

---

You raise a good point. Unfortunately, I never took the initiative to dedicated my research to other religious doctrines. Though my choice was based on Christianity, it is unfortunate that alternate faiths and beliefs remain very much bound by geographic and ethnic implications. I for one would of loved to travel the world and study all of the options to that effect. Having said this, I am pleased to say that I am not bound by any religious group or enterprises.In the mid part of your comment, you make reference to a human emotion in the J document(Not sure what this means btw). And to this I would like to mention that your reasoning of this scripture seems somewhat skewed. For example; is it even sound to conclude that God demonstrates *a human emotion when we were etched in God's image? Would it not be the other way around? Furthermore, some translations render the the account with the term "regret" however the Greek and Hebrew scriptures present it with a different emotion. One of long thought or contemplation. In either case, God demonstrated that He had feelings. By all accounts this is a good thing.Nevertheless, I remain interested in the scriptural passages which you make reference to in your argument.

quote:

---

sure, if you simply re-write the story so it says what you want it to. but the way it's been for the last 2600 years or so has been in a logical order, where each action depends entirely on the action before, and each action is then judged "good" or "bad." that's trial and error.

---

Do we even have 2600 year old data to scrutinize? Last I looked the latest we had at our disposition were 700 year old documents. Thought we do have the dead sea scrolls, they remain fragmented and the Genesis account seems to be missing.

quote:

---

what you're doing is changing something around because of what you personally believe. there's issues with having the text of the bible dictate belief, but there is a much greater issue with belief dictating the text of the bible. at the very least, it should go in the other direction. read it like it's any other book, not like you know what it's really supposed to say.

---

Thats an interesting statement. I think reality would prove otherwise. Unlike most people, I was not raised in a religious environment. In fact, I was drawn to my own path without any inherent or biased desires. It was not until I began to study the ancient scriptures that I chose to settle on a belief. As far as I can tell, it came after the fact. So you see, it was by your own emotions that you assumed such things.Nevertheless, I have no issues with any such accusations, I do however find it interesting that the only viable option to explain my own contradictions is that I am bound by some religious belief or otherwise. Thought it remains quite possible that my observations were based purely on my own scriptural research and understanding. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

Where could we find a 2200 year old copy of the Septuagint? If such a thing exists, I am packing my bags to go study it(no joke).