You're still not getting it.
The passage isn't describing "when."
It's describing "what." Chapter 1 gives the "when."
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
You're still not getting it.
The passage isn't describing "when."
It's describing "what." Chapter 1 gives the "when."
Nice try at a save. I am not buying it. The context clearly suggests that the creatures were formed for Adam.
There is grammar that would make it clear. It would say the animals that had been formed from the ground. It does not say that!
I'm not "trying at" anything.
Too bad.
Yes, all of the creatures in this world were formed for man to have dominion over.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” - Genesis 1:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:26&version=NKJV
It is extremely clear already to those who aren't trying to force it to be in contradiction.
Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? | GotQuestions.org
Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? Are there contradictions between Genesis chapters 1 and 2?
www.gotquestions.org
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
True. And that affords you no help wherewith to prop up your error. As @JudgeRightly noted, God formed the creatures for Adam to have dominion over. But, contrary to your error, it does not suggest that God formed the creatures after He had formed Adam.
In verse 18, God is talking about making the woman, Eve: "an help meet for him [Adam]". He is not talking about making the beasts of the field and the fowl of the air. This is easy to see by reading verse 20, in which we learn that none of the beasts of the field nor fowl of the air was "an help meet" for Adam:
Also, we nowhere read that "AFTER the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him, THEN out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air..." So, you, being a Bible-despiser, are lying about the text of the Bible.
The answer lies in the scholarly translation of what was actually written and passed down, not in anyone's attempt patch up things in their favor on some website. Is that agreed?I'm not "trying at" anything.
Too bad.
Yes, all of the creatures in this world were formed for man to have dominion over.
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” - Genesis 1:26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:26&version=NKJV
It is extremely clear already to those who aren't trying to force it to be in contradiction.
Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? | GotQuestions.org
Why are there two different Creation accounts in Genesis chapters 1-2? Are there contradictions between Genesis chapters 1 and 2?www.gotquestions.org
So, you think God is a bad writer? He talks about Adam's need for a help meet, goes off on a tangent about animals then comes back to the help meet agenda? Someone is abandoning plain interpretation of writing for interpretation by contortion.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
After God created Adam. Is that difficult for you?
"another piece of help meet"??
What do you mean by that, troll?
"potential help meets"??
What do you mean by that, troll? To what are you referring by your phrase, "potential help meets," troll? To the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air? If so, why would you refer to them by that phrase?
The text nowhere gives so much as a hint that God had created any of the beasts of the field or fowls of the air with an intention of them being an help meet for Adam.
Since God had not created an help meet for Adam before He created Eve, why would you say that, before He created Eve, God would "see if there is a help meet among what [God had] created"?
Whence are you getting your claim that Genesis 2 states that the animals were created after Adam, which claim you have yet to prove?
No. I think you are a bad (and, frankly, I'd not be the least bit surprised to learn, a drug-addled) thinker.
What you erroneously call "plain interpretation of writing," here, is merely the peculiar stupidity that is your thinking.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
To what?
To what are you referring by that phrase?
To what are you referring by that phrase?
Is it meaningful?
I just gave you the answer.
So any answer that doesn't agree with your position is an "attempt to patch things up in someone's favor on some website"?
Could it be possible that that IS the answer, and you're just not willing to concede the argument in favor of the Bible not being as contradictory as you say or think or hold that it is?
Shortly after Adam.
Your mockery of God will not be tolerated on TOL. Knock it off.
Eve was created after Adam, who was created after the animals.
The animals are not "help meets."
Because bestiality is vile and disgusting.
God made the animals to breed with like animals, and made humans to breed with humans, male with female.
No, they weren't, as has already been explained.
You clearly do.
Why do you assume God has to instantaneously do something?
Why can't God, the one who made man on day six (and not day one), say that He will do something, and then do other tasks, and then do that which He said He would do? Why would such make God (and Moses by extension) a bad writer?
What in the world is that even supposed to mean? No one here is contorting anything, aside from you, who are twisting scripture to try to make it out to be nonsensical, when it reads just fine without any interpretation.
That's what happened. Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but much of the material he wrote about was from former authors for the book of Genesis.
You can read about the tablet theory here.
Therefore, the creation was does have two stories, one by God and the other by Adam - of the same event. JD's link would have told you the same, but your response makes it seem like you aren't listening to what JD is saying.
It is merely Adam's way of saying that the animals had been formed from the ground, but Eve was formed from Adam's rib. You are reading too much into what you perceive as a "gotcha". It would be better if you understood that the bible is a lot more mushy in accounts and details than the binary view you need it to be in order to reject the Word of God. And this mushiness is a feature that makes the bible robust, not something that makes the bible vague or unreliable. This is because we are humans with flaws and misunderstanding even in the best of our scholarship, so the stories of the bible can flow in a certain direction with allowance to readjust our thinking to get a more accurate view the more we read. If the bible were the binary thinking account the way you read it, we see you get on the wrong track and get farther and farther from rational understanding of the bible as time goes by with no way for you readjust.
No, that's not what happened. Moses is the original author of the Pentateuch. No one else (aside from God) had a hand in writing it.
Supra.
No such authors exist.
Rather, YOU should read Dr. Umberto Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures, in which he proves that Moses was the original author of the Pentateuch.
You can also listen to the BEL show on this here:
There is only a single story, told twice in different ways.
I assume you are referring to me, yes? It's JR, not JD.
No, it doesn't. Literally in the first paragraph:
| The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event. |
(from the GQ link above)
Of course he isn't.
And don't be a hypocrite.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Indeed!
There's a reason it's so robust, in addition to what you said above. It's because there's an overarching story to the Bible that gives context to everything that is said in it. When you ignore the storyline of the Bible, you lose that context, and that leads to misinterpretations and false conclusions.
Exactly!
Oy, I mixed JR and RD together. Sorry about that.No, that's not what happened. Moses is the original author of the Pentateuch. No one else (aside from God) had a hand in writing it.
Supra.
No such authors exist.
Rather, YOU should read Dr. Umberto Cassuto's The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch: Eight Lectures, in which he proves that Moses was the original author of the Pentateuch.
You can also listen to the BEL show on this here:
There is only a single story, told twice in different ways.
I assume you are referring to me, yes? It's JR, not JD.
No, it doesn't. Literally in the first paragraph:
The idea of two differing creation accounts is a common misinterpretation of these two passages which, in fact, describe the same creation event.
(from the GQ link above)
The JEDP document theory is clearly wrong. But the tablet theory I linked to is quite a different from the document hypothesis. In fact, I was talking with Bob Ball (don't know if you remember him. Super great guy and friend of Bob Enyart) and he was telling me about the tablet theory and if my memory serves me right, he had discussed it with Bob Enyart as well. If Bob E. had disagreed with Bob B., they were good enough friends that Enyart would have said something in opposition to the idea. So I'm pretty sure Enyart was familiar with the tablet theory and considered it, at least, a theory that made a number of good points.
But further, to say Moses was the sole author of Genesis would still be accurate within the tablet theory. Just because someone writes a book, which is largely an historic book, you don't say there are other authors because the writer references and quotes writings that are from the people in the story he's writing about. In fact, getting the most original manuscripts to make up the history you are writing about, which may even be written by the first-hand witness and not copies, is the very best way to write accurate history.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
It's one or the other. Hypothesis or theory.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage
Oh, yeah. I didn't proof read that. I took "documentary hypothesis" from JR's post and added 'theory' since it was opposite the tablet theory. I'll edit.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Here, you seem to be admitting that, when you talk about the Bible in these threads, you are giving us no interpretation of it.
On what basis do you choose to call "scientists," those whom you choose to call "scientists"?
What's the difference between evidence and what you call "demonstrable evidence"?
So you want to say people are fools for not buying your claim that what you choose to call "proof" is proof?
Give us 1) a proposition you'd call a "truth of science," and 2) a proposition you'd call a "truth of religion," if you please.
Scientific truth and religious truth are one and the same. When religion contradicts proven science it's superstition and dogma. When religion fails to acknowledge religion its materialism.
I'm not asking you to buy my claims about anything, this is just a site where we express opinions. My claims are a result of looking at the best science available, the science you and I live by every second of every day and applying it to Scripture, especially in places where a literal interpretation has made religion a mockery. First man, taking snakes, global floods, Garden of Paradise, a wooden boat with two of every animal. None of this is literal, but it does hold within these stories a great symbolic wisdom.
All these subject points have appeared in various creation myths before Genesis was written. They were used because they were part of the myth history of the region. But the writer, via divine influence, wove a deeper truth into the narrative.
Let me give you an example. Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils. So Adam had a living soul because of the breath of God. God obviously does not breath, this is what animals do, so that breath was the image or likeness of God, it was spirit. God breath His spirit into him. Then Eve was made from a rib bone, in other words, from flesh and blood. So Eve is the human life force that comes about through flesh, or procreation and Adam is spirit that comes about through God, which is the image or likeness to God that is a part of every single human. Humans being the only creature with a spirit because God breathed, or attached, or bequeathed each human with a living, eternal spirit.
Adam and Eve represent ever human that will ever be. They are a generic representation of every one of us. Adam the human spirit and Eve the human life force that is constantly being tempted. In this case the snake represents attachment because it is a creature with its entire body on the earth. We humans are always tempted by attachment to things other than God and this is when we are expelled form the Garden of Paradise of God's good pleasure. This is only a small part of the meaning behind this story.
Now of course I imagine this will go over like a lead ballon. I will be very disappointed if I don't get a bunch of laughing emojis.
All the best, my wife is calling me and she must be obeyed at all cost.
Did you mean to say here "When science fails...."?
We're asking you to consider the evidence for the Bible.
We also discuss facts and evidence. Opinions are a dime a dozen.
Rather, your claims are the result of looking at secular dogma. In other words, it's not science.
Speak for yourself.
Applying science to scripture is what we've been asking for from the secular scientific community for the past however long. They refuse to comply, because doing so might invalidate their a priori notion of millions of years and evolution and the Big Bang (not that that hasn't already been upended...).
At no point has a literal interpretation of scripture (not woodenly literal, mind you, but a consistent application of reasoning, where what is written as literal is taken literally, and what is written as a figure of speech or metaphor is taken as such) ever made Christianity a mockery. Other religions, yes. But not Christianity.
What makes a mockery of Christianity is when people refuse to take God at His word, mashing it up and saying "it's all figurative."
Was there ever a point when there were no humans?
If so, was there ever a point where there was more than one human?
If so, then how do you go from zero humans to more than one human, without ever crossing having the point where there is a first human?
Satan certainly is a serpent.
One that caused the entire solar system to be affected? Yup, that did happen.
Yup, that existed too.
For most, and then 7 of other animals.
You should think about visiting the Ark Exhibit in Kentucky, run by Ken Ham and AiG.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Yes, those stories of REAL events do hold wisdom. Saying it's all symbolic, however, removes any wisdom you might gain from them, however.
Ever heard of the Tower of Babel?
It happened within a few hundred years of the Flood.
Guess what happens when you take a group of people who have the same history, then split them up by changing their native language and send them out across the earth?
You end up with nearly every culture on earth having those same stories about the flood and garden of Eden, even if they're all mashed into one.
Guess what happens when the actual account is preserved by God, and given to Moses, who wrote Genesis?
You get the Pentateuch, and then all you need are various authors of scripture throughout the next 1600 years or so.
Except that the things in the Bible actually happened (or in the case of Revelation, will happen).
True, but that doesn't mean that what he wrote should be taken allegorically or non-literally.
You should listen to the recent episodes of Real Science Radio, where this exact subject is talked about.
Here's the links:
Duh. Yet he breathed life into Adam. It's a figure of speech that means he started the process of life. See the above kgov shows for reference.
It's also what man does.
Nope.
The image of God is the image that He created for His Son to indwell, whom He then created man in the image of. (ie, head, torso, two arms, two legs, a face, etc...)
A spirit is something that isn't physical. What occurred when God breathed life into Adam was the start of a physical process, and the attachment of a soul/spirit to Adam.
Yes.
Correct.
Yes.
No.
Eve was the first woman. An actual living, breathing, human woman.
Procreation is involved, but Eve is not just a walking womb.
Nope, Adam was a human man, the first man.
Both Adam and Eve had souls and spirits.
False.
Correct. Literally.
That's what makes man so special.
No.
No, they're not.
Adam and Eve were created perfect. Then they sinned, and as a result, God cast them out of the Garden.
New-age nonsense.
More new-age nonsense.
Lead balloons do float, by the way...
Sorry, no emojis here.
Try telling her that she's actually just Eve, the human life force.
Bet you she smacks some sense into you.