Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Cafe - Open Discussion
>
Huge issue: are there 2 contradictory creation accounts in the Bible?
I have never read two different creation accounts in the Bible.I do find it funny when they try and put a "GAP" in the middle of one long Hebrew sentence though!
Genesis 2 fits nicely into Genesis 1 when you don't have an agenda. I also agree about the foolish "gap" nonsense.
Wade wrote: "Genesis 2 fits nicely into Genesis 1 when you don't have an agenda. I also agree about the foolish "gap" nonsense."I verified with one of my Hebrew scholar friends and Genesis 1:1-3 is one long Hebrew sentence.
Yet people want to put a "GAP" in the middle of one sentence.
The creation account of the universe after "In the beginning" is ludicrous. A 7th grade physical science student could shoot a dozen holes in it. Sure it happened, but not as described from a vision by a recounter who had no idea our sun and other stars were made from the same stuff. You guys take this literally - God help us all? When God was handing out basic common sense you must have been under a rock.
You haven't convinced me. I'm sticking with the Bible.What verse exactly do you think is faulty?
Robert wrote: "The creation account of the universe after "In the beginning" is ludicrous. A 7th grade physical science student could shoot a dozen holes in it. Sure it happened, but not as described from a visio..."I am with Rod on this one... sticking with the Bible... rather than you 7th grade OPINION.
Rod wrote: "2 creation accounts in scripture? Atheists think so, liberal Christians think so, academics think so, the Pope probably even thinks so.I laughingly say No. yet millions disagree?!"
What chapters and verses in Genesis do people explicitly consider to be two separate accounts in Genesis?
Chapter 1 to 2:3.And 2:4 on is a contradictory account.
There's a fun reason for that. But dumb.
Rod wrote: "Chapter 1 to 2:3.And 2:4 on is a contradictory account."
Gen 1-2:3 -- God makes the plants and animals before man
Gen 2:4 -- God makes man before the plants and animals
Upon reading the two accounts, they do seem to contradict.
Rod, do you disagree that there is a contradiction? Or, are you saying in your original post that the contradiction does not constitute two exclusive creation accounts?
Rod wrote: "There's a fun reason for that. But dumb."Would you mind elaborating on this statement a bit more, please?
7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.It really comes down to the words Then and And.
Rod wrote: "7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.It really comes down to the words Then and And."
Are you saying that there is no contradiction between Gen. 1-2:3 and Gen. 2:4-25? Or that they are just one creation account?
What do the "then" and "and" in Gen. 2:7 signify here? Do they resolve the apparent contradiction? Do they affirm it?
I'm not fully understanding your position.
Sorry, maybe I'm not being clear.One account in 2 parts:
1) Cosmic creation overall.
2) Focuses down on Earth and life. Zooms in.
Many think these are contradictory accounts with bad sequences. But God didn't promise this telling was purely chronological.
There's some brilliant word play in this tale. I'm sure God did it just to trigger emotional reactions from atheists and liberals. He's gotta have His fun too.
Rod - that's not readily apparent in the Bible. Show me one verse where humor is exhibited.
Robert wrote: "Rod - that's not readily apparent in the Bible. Show me one verse where humor is exhibited."Why bother? You would just REJECT the Word of God... and the God of the Word... as it suits you.
Mattia - well, it's not surprising that the two accounts differ in scope as the time between them is vast. The universe was created about 14.5 billion years ago (bya), earth came along 4.5 bya, and plant life made it's appearance about 1.5 bya. Everything else is more recent such as Man who at most has only been extant since, at the utmost, 5 million years ago.
Mattia - and what precise function are you measuring? Is it corporeal or supernatural? If supernatural what's your quantifying methodology? If you can't measure time, form or space, what is your innate basis of understanding? Sure, God takes belief but the material things He created should be explored to their fullest extent to understand their essence (form follows function)!
Are people doubting what The Holy Spirit has revealed through God's prophets? (Not that you are)"If only the Holy Spirit knew what my astrophysicist university professor knew... then God could fix his bible. Or at least have given Moses a bigger telescope"
Nothing wrong with the texts - our desires allow us to distort the truth for our own pride and rebellion. Many would rather trust man's academia than God: even though our thoughts fail endlessly.
Intend Truth AND scripture. Recognize bad science for what it is.
Mattia - right you are, but Rod doesn't recognize any science in conjunction with Scripture. It's as if all God's natural laws are somehow written in Scripture and not found in the physical world awaiting discovery. It is best when dealing on this board to consider all as amateur artists whose technology is solely limited to computers.
Robert why do you assume I don't have a shelf full of science books? The bible isn't a science manual - but it does speak clear truth about our cosmos and materialistic universe.
Rod - because you are a seeker of truth, I will cede that you do have science books and have read them. However, understanding the cosmos is a lifelong enterprise that has baffled the best minds in astrophysics AFTER devoting practically every waking hour to the conundrum. In this undertaking, WE would both be considered amateurs. I've devoted considerable effort to understanding DNA and its implications which are extraordinarily complex enough for my simple brain. In the chemistry, I find the hand of God without any evidence of randomness without design. As an amateur geologist who enjoys a little excavation in the Franklin Mountains of El Paso, I find the same pattern. With regret, I don't find Scripture of much help in these pursuits, but do find it useful in my social interactions. As such, I use the Bible for what it was intended, and pursue a scientist's outlook toward those disciplines for which it is not.
Robert wrote: "However, understanding the cosmos is a lifelong enterprise ..."My response: LOL!!!!! But understanding the Bible (according to the unbiblical Robert is folly and a waste of time. Because the unbiblical Robert says that the Bible is NOT the Word of God (except for the bits that the unbiblical Robert says are God's Word)
Yes, honest scientists admit when they are baffled ( which is often ) but then some turn around and declare much to be Facts that go against the Bible. Bad uses of the definition FACT.
Rod - I understand that many scientists, even excellent ones at the cutting edge of their fields have no use for the Bible (or a God, for that matter). However, after reviewing all the evidence I'm privy to, I conclude there is a Supreme Creator. Because I'm not unbiblical as Robert D. claims, I believe this Creator made all the animate and inanimate objects he says he did. The time factor is rubbish as is the summation of the Creation process, but the general account rings true to a Believer. I, nor anyone else, has any facts to back this up; it's all about Faith. SO, secular scientists who have FACTS are no different than religious fruitcakes like Robert D. who have FACTS. They're both the same - full of self-righteous B.S.!
Robert wrote: "Because I'm not unbiblical as Robert D. claims..."My response: Did God create all of creation in six days?
Was Jonah in the belly of a great fish for three days and nights?
Did God feed the people in the wilderness with manna?
Did God flood the entire earth and saved Noah's family in the Ark?
You ABSOLUTELY ARE UNBIBLICAL!
Robert wrote: "I, nor anyone else, has any facts to back this up;.."My response: The Word of God... and the Words of Jesus ARE ENOUGH FACTS for any TRUE BELIEVER.
The CLAIMS of science are enough to cause UNBELIEVERS TO WAIVER.
Robert - so, a TRUE BELIEVER in your opinion can only take the Bible literally. That leaves out most of the Christians at my church and many others. Jesus does not require this extraordinary step for salvation. Maybe you are trying for a higher calling like being God's earthly sword. You claim I am my own God, but you blatantly ignore Jesus' calling to ALL who accept Him as the resurrected Son of God. I consider you ignorant of God's laws of physics, arrogant in your insistence that your opinion supersedes Jesus', and lazy in your attempts to truly interpret Biblical interpretations in light of scientific and historical findings. Foolish Fundamentalists like you narrow the Faith rather than spread it. You're an embarrassment to thoughtful Christians everywhere.
The Bible does show that Jesus insists people take God's Word rather literally. The literal parts anyway. Parables and poetry are to be taken as such.
Robert wrote: "Robert - so, a TRUE BELIEVER in your opinion can only take the Bible literally. That leaves out most of the Christians at my church and many others. Jesus does not require this extraordinary step for salvation...."My response: Jesus DOES require this SIMPLE FAITH step for LIVING !
Matthew 4:4 - "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Robert wrote: "but you blatantly ignore Jesus' calling to ALL who accept Him as the resurrected Son of God..."Jesus spoke of those who accept the TRUE JESUS of the Bible... NOT those who accept a FALSE JESUS who REJECTS the Word of God.
Your Jesus is one of the FALSE christs that the TRUE Jesus WARNED us about. (A christ of your own making and defining.)
Mattia wrote: "Rod you've said the key of the question: "the literal parts". We cannot take a text without a comprehension of it. The genre, the way of saying..ecc.. And Genesis, what is it? A sapiential narratio..."My response: We MUST take the ENTIRE Bible...
LITERALLY... IN CONTEXT!
Prose is prose...
History is history...
Proverbs are proverbs...
Poetry is poetry...
ALL are to be taken LITERALLY... IN CONTEXT!
Mattia, genesis 1 and 2, and then 3 and then... leave no room for anything other than historical Fact. The rest of the bible even repeats it as such. The genealogies even prove that there really are no breaks in the story... as does the snake that is Satan.Theologically there are no breaks either. Solid stuff.
Mattia wrote: "Rod, the text says another thing. You makes confusion between a narration (with chronological structure and a "history") and an historical narration (a narration with pretention of historical preci..."There are NO contradictions in Genesis (or anywhere in the Bible).
Please DIRECTLY QUOTE your alleged contradictions.
Mattia wrote: "Robert, you have to learn to read, because nor the word "contradiction" is present in my intervention."I know how to read... it seems that you need to learn this skill. I requested DIRECT QUOTES of your ALLEGED contradictions... perhaps you do not understand this request?
Mattia when can I factually start trusting your bible? Are Adam and Eve factual? Is God stopping His work factual? Is Noah factual? Sin coming into the world? Satan?
Rod - Noah is factual, but a worldwide flood is not. It was localized in the Sea of Marmara near the Bosporus. His hometown where he got all his ark supplies was probably the now lost Atlantis. It did indeed rain for 40 days and 40 nights precipitating the flood and burying the area around the Euphrates in Iraq where the Garden of Eden was located. Everything Biblical is awaiting discovery but is underwater or buried a mile belowground. If someone really wanted the truth on this matter, they'd actually launch this massive excavation, but no one to date has the courage to match their claims.
Robert wrote: "Rod - Noah is factual, but a worldwide flood is not. It was localized in the Sea of Marmara near the Bosporus. His hometown where he got all his ark supplies was probably the now lost Atlantis. It ..."Luke 17:26-27
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Ok, Robert, that doesn't contradict my post. What's your point beside mindlessly throwing out Bible verses that don't even address the tenet of the preceding message? Too lazy to consult the Bible and just throwing out what your Bible school instructors told you to memorize?
Robert wrote: "Ok, Robert, that doesn't contradict my post. What's your point beside mindlessly throwing out Bible verses that don't even address the tenet of the preceding message? Too lazy to consult the Bible ..."Luke 17:26-27
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Robert wrote: "If someone really wanted the truth on this matter, they'd actually launch this massive excavation, but no one to date has the courage to match their claims..."If someone really wanted truth... THEY WOULD BELIEVE GOD!
Why don't you?
Mattia wrote: "Rod: the sin has come into the world by the choice of a man (or a couple), ..."My response: You DON'T even KNOW what God says... but you act like you know everything...
God clearly TELLS us the source of SIN in the world (kosmos)...
Romans 5:12 - "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world , and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"
There, next time you can leave off the (or a couple).
Thanks Mattia. I'm just checking - often people throw out the baby with the bath water. Or they discard Sin with the unscientific creation account.
In my experience: if you discard the trustworthy factual creation account --- then you ARE a theological liberal. Just a matter of time and then you'll be adjusting the flood account (like Robert just did). Then the Tower of Babel gets a facelift, eventually the exodus is just an old Hebrew myth. And Jesus becomes a social activist for Green Peace and gay rights.I'm glad you aren't that far down the road.
Genesis 131 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
So what exactly can I factually and historically trust in that verse? As opposed to the 30 verses before it?
Mattia wrote: "Robert, you are intellectually dishonest. I will not discuss with you. ..."My response: No problem. I prefer NOT to discuss the Bible with those who REJECT God and His Word.
I laughingly say No. yet millions disagree?!