What's Best Reconciliation of Gen 1 and 2 You've Heard?

I think some of the principles in quantum mechanics do hold keys to better understanding "how God did-it" but many folks around here don't even accept the empirical data and science, much less drawing parallels with theology.However, I am not so sure there are any contradictions to be "solved" between Genesis 1 and 2. I've always seen Genesis 2 as just filling in more details. It's also interesting that Genesis speaks of things like flying creatures being created before man during the time before land mammals were created, and being created from the sea, and then Genesis 2 speaks of birds being created from the ground, and so we see here a distinction between the animals created to if a help was found suitable for Adam, which is a pretty primitive thought, and the animals created on the 5th day.What's interesing to me is how science has resolved this so-called contradiction but evos don't see it. When people say what about the dinosaurs, I say it's right there in the Bible. How did Moses know about prehistoric dino-birds, flying reptiles?So we do see the Bible speaking of a creation of creatures around the time of Adam, in the same day or era, that were more similar to Adam (mammals including birds), and see that before man was created there existed prehistoric flying creatures and other animals.But I think it gets deeper. Personally, I don't see the past, present, and future as a single historical time-line, and so the creation days in Genesis as more patterns, real events, but that the past is not static.So I ponder if when death entered into the world, if it didn't create death in the past as well, in the whole time-line.

That's the way I've read it. I don't see the contradictions the OP are talking about.

I think you mean I Kings. A lot of such things are resolved on closer inspection, but let's say the contradiction is real, and let's go further and say, even though the basic story of the wars seems the same, that the contradiction is not just a scribal error.You assume they both cannot be true.But is that correct? How do you know they both cannot be true? Maybe they are both true, and put in there to show us that reality is a little different than what we surmise based on everyday assumptions.

The Bible does not say he survived by natural means, but suggests he cried out after death and God heard him, or you can see the language as figurative that he cried out from Sheol or some such, but was still alive. I tend to think the former.He died, but God raised him back up and had the fish or whale spit him up on the beach, and probably the way he looked made the story all the more credible, and Ninevah repented, which was what Jonah did not want.interesting story, and true

Plus the sun and the moon were not created until the 4th day. What would a day be?I have a hard time seeing the Bible as saying 24 hour periods, although it could be, but the text suggests something different, imo.

I don't see the different order at all. Genesis 2 does not state that all the animals were created after Adam. You have to stretch it to make the contradiction, imo. Read them both as the same story, one more general and one more detailed, and they fit.In fact, it strongly suggests the exact opposite of what you claim. God makes Adam and puts him in the Garden, and then God sets off to make him a helper suitable for him, as the story goes. Then, Genesis reads beginning at 2:19."Now, the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and ...... He brought them to the man..."It looks pretty clear that the animals had already been formed, and only God brings them around to Adam.Now, it is a curious story, and one must assume God knew all along exactly what He would do, but it reads the way it does for our benefit.But getting back to the main point of this thread, Genesis does not state the animals were created after Adam.Moreover, Genesis 1: 27 strongly suggests the order of Genesis 2 in the creation of Adam first."So God created man in his own image, in the image of God h created hin; male and female he created them."This message has been edited by randman, 08-30-2005 01:10 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-30-2005 01:33 AM

That's a pretty interesting idea, might even be true.

Hoary, you make an interesting conjecture. Maybe elaborate some more on the parable of Genesis 1.

One assumption is that only one historical time-line leads up to our present. My point is perhaps that is not the case.

It's useful if it's true. Just listen to yourself...."what we already know", hey, just forget the facts, we know it already. It's a matter of faith with us!You evos are some of most faith-based bunches of folks on the planet, which wouldn't be so bad if you just admitted it, but alas, that's not to be.

I don't see any contradictions at all between Genesis 1 and 2. What you call voodoo time is based on something called relativity.Basically, if all space-time is one thing, there is no reason, imo, for it not to fluctuate and change within the expanse of itself, perhaps lengthening and contracting, changing from one sort of frequency to another, etc,...Another way to look at it is this. The earth is not a sphere hanging in space, but a streak through space-time. I think an evo here made that comment. Now, why would one point on that streak or pole not be connected to the other point?

Useless is not well-defined by you here. I would say understanding the basic mechanisms of space and time are very useful. Just because as we dig a little deeper, our notions change does not mean the discoveries are not useful. If discover, as I think we already have to a certain extent, that time is relative, and present and future events can have some causal effects in the past, then that could be extremely useful.For example, we could potentially exploit such a small causal effect in creating quantum computers where the calculations essentially use time in the past to do their calculations and thereby increasing the computing power immensely to what would appear to us at superluminal speeds.But it may be that they are not useful for arguing for evolution. If that's what you mean, well, that's just too bad.This message has been edited by randman, 12-07-2005 02:52 AM